From Across the Pond

Book review: "Thermopylae - The Battle that Changed the World"

by Paul Cartledge (link)

I picked up this book recently as it was part of a 3for2 special offer. I previously knew of Paul Cartledge's work from university, where I used him as a source for two separate projects. He is one of the great modern authorities of Classical Sparta, so I thought it would be interesting to see how he viewed this most iconic moment in Sparta's history.

The book is divided into three. The first portion sets the background, to Classical Greece (in particular of course Classical Sparta), the Persian Empire, and the background to the Graeco-Persian wars, including the Ionian revolt and the Battle of Marathon. The second portion is dedicated to the battle of Thermopylae itself, the preparations for the campaign, its initial stages, and then finally the actual battle. The third portion talks about how the battle has been viewed and portrayed, both in ancient times and more recently (up to and including Frank Miller), and also explores a little of the consequences of the battle on world, and especially western, history. The appendices are devoted chiefly - though not entirely - to a discussion of Herodotus as a source, and as a historian.

While undoubtedly a work of popular history, released to coincide with the film release of 300, this is nevertheless a quite scholarly account. Paul Cartledge seems to treat his readers as being intelligent people with a real desire to know more, which is a refreshing change from other works of popular history where one can get the impression of being 'spoken down' to. He is, as might be expected, especially strong when talking about Sparta. His writing seems filled with a great enthusiasm and energy in those passages. However, one must be aware of his general pro-Spartan bias.

A limited, though useful test in Classical Greece to determine someone's prejudices is to ask them which battle was more important - Plataea or Salamis. Pro-spartans or anti-Athenians will usually answer Plataea, while anti-Spartans or pro-Athenians will generally answer Salamis. Paul Cartledge falls into the Spartan camp very firmly. This is not to dismiss what he says - but it is a call to be aware of the perspective from which he approaches things.

What I liked most about this book was undoubtedly the third portion, tracing the historiograhy of the battle. For those chapters alone I would recommend it. The discussion on Herodotus is, while not terribly ground-breaking, also seems to me a useful set of comments for the general reader who is wanting to read 'The Father of History' for the first time.

Verdit: B+

Assassinations - Revolution or Republicanism

Over at Oxblog David Porter notes today is the Ides of March, and notes:

Blogging for an audience with many Americans in it, this got me thinking about political assassination. Obviously they happen under all sorts of political systems. But I've often speculated that republics or republican movements, founded on the principle of anti-monarchism, have produced more intensely ideological justifications for regicide or tyrannicide. So, are there books out there which explore the history not of assassinations, but of the political and intellectual foundations for justifying it? Are there continuities in republican thought that link the likes of Brutus, Booth, or Cromwell (who authorised one at least)?

I think David is confusing two separate, but related, things here. The first is the genuine political assassination, as with Brutus or Booth. The second is the political show trial followed by execution, the fate of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. However, I also wonder if by identifying these movements with republicanism he is missing out of another factor present in all three examples he mentions, and is also present in the one I mention: revolution.

The Rome in which Caesar was murdered was a Rome undergoing a monarchical revolution. Abraham Lincoln, for all his apparent ambivalence, had overseen a dramatic revoluation called the ending of Slavery, and had just led the USA through to victory in the civil war his election sparked. Cromwell and Robespierre (though to be fair to both they did not act alone) were revolutionaries themselves who had, for the moment, won.

There is a necessary difference. Both Brutus and Booth belonged to effectively defeated parties at the time of their deeds, both Cromwell and Roespierre belonged to victorious parties at the time of the executions of Charles I and Louis XVI. To demonstrate the point a little further it useful to remember the most famous assassination of the French Revoluation: that of Jean-Paul Marat at the hand of royalist Charlotte Corday. Someone from the losing side engaging in a lone assassination attempt.

Let us look for a moment at the victorious side's position. They have emerged dominant from a struggle, and have overthrown the previous order. They have usurped power, and in the process may have plunged, or are plunging, the country in some kind of civil war. The object of their ire is in their possession. Usurpers are always weak, and so it is natural to try and prove that your revolution was justified (though not always followed through). Also, the captured ruler is a figurehead for opposition, so it natural to seek to remove that figurehead. Of course, in the process all that often is achieved is the creation of martyr or a myth, and can often spark even more trouble (look at what happened to France in 1793). 

The position from the 'losing' side is harder. Obviously the opportunity for the show trial does not exist, and so I think revenge must enter greatly into these actions. Revolutions are intense times, with intense themes. I do not find it difficult to understand that individuals could become consumed by those times, aiming to strike that one final blow at a great figure, hoping to turn the tide.

Is there a link with republics? I think only in so far as republics are often born of revolution. Of the examples discussed here it should be remembered that Corday was a royalist; the Dictator Caesar was the revolutionary in his day, not to republican Brutus; and that the Southern Succession was in many ways a counter-revolution (and by extension Booth).

Of course this a just a tiny number of incidents to base an idea, and I have strictly kept to areas I know at least a little about. It is also very general, so general as to be full of holes, However I hope there is enough there to see what I am trying to say.

Review: Persian Fire

by Tom Holland (link)

This book is a popular history of the Persian Wars, or more precisely for the conflicts between the Persian Empire and the Greek City States, culminating in the invasion of Xerxes and its final defeat in 479BC. The books has two starting points. The first is the creation of the Persian Empire itself, from the vacuum caused by the fall of the Assyrians (Chapters 1 & 2). The second are the early histories of the two Greek cities who became predominant: Athens and Sparta (Chapters 3 & 4). The next chapter takes us through the Ionian Revolt, but more importantly its consequence: the expedition against Athens in 490 that was memorably defeated at Marathon. This takes us a little over half-way through the book, and the remaining chapters deal with the grand showdown that led to Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea, and the final defeat of the Persian invasion. The book ends there, in 479, and only briefly in the short epilogue mentions that the war against Persia continues (for Athens) on for another thirty years.

As an overview of the period in question this is a very accomplished book. It is also a book of its time, that is a book written at a time of religious war. In the Foreward the author tells a story who had difficulty getting agreement for a history syllabus to be changed to the Crusades because it was not relevant, and then eleven days into the academic year four planes in America were hijacked by religious terrorists, with consequences we know all too well. As a result Tom Holland brings out the religious nature of Persian rule in a way that I have not read about before. The Persian Emperors were followers of Zoroastrianism, and Tom Holland presents them very much as crusaders for their beliefs, seeking to battle 'The Lie' wherever it was to be found bearing the banner of 'Truth'. Indeed, one thing I like about this book is that takes time to look at the Persians themselves, something that history-books of the period rarely do. Too often the Persians are simply a foil for the Greeks. Tom Holland is more traditional however in that he puts the Persian Wars right at the tradition of East-West conflicts that have echoed down through the centuries ever since. All this can be seen from the subtitle which is "The First World Empire and the Battle for the West".

There is an interesting comparison here. Christian Meier in his book Athens described Salamis as 'the eye of the needle' through which history has to pass. For him it is the defining moment of the city. By contrast Tom Holland, although he does not use the same language, lays a similar emphasis on the earlier battle of Marathon. While Salamis defines Athens as a sea-power based democracy true, it is Marathon where the old fashioned (even anti-democratic) land army that preserves that nascent democracy and marks the first definitive 'Western' victory to this ancient conflict in historical times.

I have a few quibbles with the book. In particular Tom Holland overuses one phrase 'pour encourager les autres' that grates after the first time. It seems to be used mostly because it is a fancy thing to say, rather than to have any particular point. A petty thing perhaps, small spots can mar a larger picture. Likewise Holland, in keeping with most similar histories, separates out the wars of 490 and 480-70 from the subsequent war of Athens and the Delian League against the Persian Empire. As a result these events lose some of their historical context. A history of the Persian wars for which Marathon, Salamis, and Plataea are start-points, not end-points, is I feel long-overdue.

However, be that as it may, Tom Holland is more than able to bring out the drama of this struggle.  It would take an idiot not to make something out of Marathon, Thermopylae, the evacuation of Athens, and Salamis, and Tom Holland is no idiot. Unfortunately like all others before him he finds it difficult to maintain the high-pitch after Salamis. Plataea it seems, much like Eurymedon, is doomed to be overcast by those earlier triumphs and notable defeat.

On the whole though I liked this book, and would recommend it to anyone who wants a general history of this epic confrontation. Of course, for a contemporary perspective I would also advocate they read Herodotus, and [i]The Persians[/i] by Aeschylus. Aeschylus fought in the wars, and in that play you get a very frank view of how the Athenians thought of the Persians, and of those remarkable events.