Customer Reviews

From Democrats to Kings

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The 4th Century has long been difficult period of Greek history to penetrate. Full of fascinating characters and the extreems of democracy and monarchy it has generated Hollywood epics (300 and Alexander) together with dry scholarly works dealing with one element or the other.

What has been lacking is one continuos narrative that charts the progress of democratic Athens to a Macedonian empire rulled by one man. Dr Scott's book fills that gap and tells the story from the perspective of a single lifetime - that of Isocrates' impressive 98 years.

I liked this book. It didn't preach from the academic pulpit or set out to demonstrate the genius of the author. For me, the narrative flowed from beginning to end injecting the pace of a novellist with the accuracy of a scholar.

The key players are quoted in a way that brings the subject to life and small details interplay well with the big historical drama. For example the Athenian prisoners arrogant request for their clothes and bedding after their crushing defeat at the battle of Chaeronea, twinned with Philip's jovial reaction, sets the scene for the broader political reaction across Greece.

For those who want to delve into this period in more detail there is a heap of source material at the back together with an excellent timeline and some really useful maps.

Hats off to Dr Scott for writing a book that allows both an enthusiastic amateur and a university undergraduate to navigate a relatively uncharted period of history with confidence. The many pieces of the 4th Century jigsaw have now fallen into place.

I look forward to reading more by this author.

VenusInScorpio may have read almost every single book that survives written in Greek or Latin before the Fall of Rome, but I'm not sure s/he has actually read the book under discussion. I found From Democrats to Kings to be readable and well-paced. The judgments that Dr Scott makes about the Spartans being "bullies" or Alexander being a "mummy's boy" are not central themes of what is essentially a narrative history. They were, however, two aspects of the book that received widespread press coverage when it was published, notably in the review that appeared in the Independent. It appears that VenusInScorpio's assessment might have been based on the content of the reviews rather than the book itself.

From Democrats to Kings is a "popular" history book. Books in this category are always open to the criticism that they do not refer often or explicitly enough to the primary sources. But Dr Scott's book is not trying to break new academic ground: it is a survey of the period, designed to be accessible to non-specialist readers. Apart from a couple of mildly irritating references to recent Hollywood films, the book works extremely well - Dr Scott has a gift for telling a story and an ability to deliver pithy summaries of characters or places at just the right moment in the text. As others have commented on this site, the book is also very well produced, with a helpful index, bibliography and timeline.

If we want to debate Dr Scott's credentials as a writer of "serious" academic history, I note that Cambridge University Press are publishing a book of his next year on his research at Delphi and Olympia. I look forward to reading it.

As someone with a relatively limited knowledge of history, especially the ancient world, this was an excellent introduction. Michael has made the material very accessible with the use of an entertaining storyline and provocative anecdotes throughout. Notably the book is peppered with examples of how the decisions and experiences in the ancient world relate to our modern reality. Too often lessons from history are overlooked. In some ways we are thrown into the world at a time we haven't chosen and can't fully comprehend; this book provides a refreshing and valuable perspective that can help us to understand how we got to where we are today.

Michael Scott's book From Democrats to Kings" discusses the period between the end of the Peloponnesian War 404 BC and Demetrios Poliorketes' coming into power in Athens in the year 307 BC. In this time span of almost exactly 100 years the Greek world saw massive changes. Michael Scott offers the reader an informative overview over the complex, often confusing and turbulent events that led to Alexander the Great's triumph over the individual Greek poleis and ultimately to the creation of new kingdoms after the collapse of Alexander's empire.
In the first chapter Scott lines out the political and economic situation in Greece after Sparta's victory over Athens in what is also called "Greece's Thirty Years' War". The following chapters give an account of the actions that brought about first Sparta's, then Thebes' rise and fall, and finally the dissolution of the Greek polis world and the beginning of the Hellenistic kingdoms. In a linguistically refreshing way Scott traces the complicated, ever changing alliances and quarrels of that century, always drawing comparisons to modern events and thus making this changeful story of 4th century Greece accessible to a wider readership, as well as allowing the experts to refresh their knowledge of this troubled period - and to be pleasurably entertained in the process.

I bought `From Democrats to Kings' on a recommendation from a friend and absolutely loved the content and writing style.

I am very surprised to see a negative review appear here, given by someone who is evidently somewhat of an expert on the ancient world, when this book was certainly not written with such an expert audience in mind.

It is always a shame when academic talent, nurtured in the most prestigious places of scholarly learning in the land, is reserved exclusively for those neck-deep in a subject, whatever that may be. So, just as it was wonderful to have Prof. Stephen Hawking bring astrophysics to the non-academic world, through his book popular science boook, `A Brief History of Time', it is wonderful to see similar efforts by Cambridge scholars, young and old, in all fields, including in ancient history.

As a non-classicist, I can highly recommend this work to all those with a lay persons curiosity in our ancient history. With expert judgment, Dr. Scott has provided just the right level and selection of detail to keep the reader engaged throughout. With his casual style and a sense of drama, he has put together a fascinating story of a period that is generally under-researched and little understood.

His style is quite evidently purposely targeted at the lay person and I wish to thank him for his excellent work and effort in this regard and to encourage him to keep at it, despite the occasional voice of complaint. Breaking down barriers - in this case the barrier between a specialist subject and the lay person - has throughout history upset those happy with the status quo. In this sense, an occasional negative comment should be taken as a note of encouragement by an author that he/she is on the right track.

For the very expert reader hungry for a more scholarly and detailed work on this subject, I would not be surprised, given Dr. Scott's position at Cambridge University and his early success with this fascinating book, that, as a matter of course, he will produce the sort of work which will enthuse and satisfy them, just as this book has enthused and satisfied me.

I gave this book 4-5 stars only because i feel the author did get slightly (like one or two paragraphs) carried away calling Alexander a mommas boy. I think it would have been much better to examine that relationship a bit further and explain why in the world the King of Greece, Macedonia, and Persia, would be keeping in contact with the one person he truly trusted.

Other than that, a fantastic book that gave great detail to the many mini-wars and the deplorable people who swayed public opinion to fight ever more.

As I asserted in my comment on a negative review of Dr. Scott's playful, brilliant and passionate account of the thorny contradictory and densely complex historical details of the 4th Century [399 to 301 B.C.E.] Greek history, it is a pleasure to recommend this book to my fellow ancient history buffs.

I have never encountered such a brilliant synthesis of astute, trenchant learning handled so lightly and playfully in my complete reading career of more than 40 years [I am 63 presently, 2010]. Ancient Greek was my passion and devotion in my young manhood. Even after reading the ancient historical treatises in Greek, I could never make sense of the 4th century in Athens, Thebes or Corinth, let alone Macedonia. Dr. Michael Scott has changed all that. He has given me a profound insight into the Persian background and the destructive wars between Athens and Sparta, and their various allies.

I would highly suggest---rather demand that my fellow scholars and amateur historians read and re-read this treatise by Dr. Scott. He has a wonderful prose style, lucid mind and a penetrating grasp of key, significant accidental facts that deepens one's grasp of this complex, contradictory age.

I have read this beautiful book three times; each reading permits me to enter more fully in its author's arrangement of materials. I was somewhat surprised that he never had to mention Alcibiades; however, his mention of Plato more than compensates.

If I have leisure in the future I will edit this review to mention details that will motivate the reader of this review to order and buy the book. I received it as a birthday gift from an intimate. This book is certainly timely for our own Democracy here in America. The Tea Party is hell bent (financed by corporate interest) to destroy our democracy by the usual dupery of court houses and churches; ancient Greece was no different. It is a must read to learn how easy it is to destroy a democracy---the tool is money (as it always is)!

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
Informatica Corporation
School Street
P. O. Drawer 460
Cecilia LA 70521-0460

I've personally read all surviving Greek or Latin accounts of the exploits of Alexander the Great and also of the Spartan society, and to be honest this whole thing must be some sort of joke. I've actually read almost every single book that survives written in Greek or Latin before the Fall of Rome. This seems like a book that is going to make the readers of it less intelligent. There has been a trend recently that I have noticed where people who don't know history so well try to belittle the accomplishments of those of the past.

It is childish to explain Spartans as "bullies". The Spartans had a warrior society where boys were taken from their parents at the age of 7 and then trained in soldiering until they were adults, and during this time they would have very little contact with their parents and were not allowed to associate with women. The training would have been brutal and many Spartans would have died during the many years of grueling training. Helots, the slaves of Sparta were constantly oppressed by their overlords because they outnumbered the Spartans and the Spartans knew it. Spartans kept the Helots in check by using a constant campaign of terrorism. The only land armies that were ever able to defeat the Spartans during a period of hundreds of years were the Thebans and later the Makedonians. The Spartan fighting prowess is undisputed by the historical record. They ruled their territories with an iron hand just as any powerful and aggressive nation does in today's world or during any other time in history.

As far as Alexander being called a Mama's boy, this author's explanation is far too simple, I'd expect much better from a Classics professor at Cambridge because his statements seem so callous that I am amazed he has even read the sources. Alexander used to say when he was alive that his mother would never forget about the 9 months of rent that he owed her. How can a man be faulted for keeping in constant contact with his mother when he was thousands of miles away in alien lands that had never been seen by his countrymen? The real reason though for Alexander's constant correspondence with his mother was not the fact that he missed her or even loved her but much more practical. When Alexander had finished subduing all nations in Greece and the Balkans, he left Antipatros in command of Macedon and Greece before he crossed the Hellespont, and he also left his mother as regent. He did this to keep a balance of power in Macedon during those 9 years when he was away. He was thousands of miles away from his home city of Pella and he needed to keep his logistics line open and being the consummate military and political genius that he was, he left his mother Olympias and Antipater as regents of Macedon. They kept each other in check by constantly watching each other's movements (Antipater and Olympias hated each other) and this hostility between Olympias and Antipater kept Macedon stable while he was away. The histories explain this very clearly, Dr. Scott should know this.

And it seems very likely indeed that Olympias planned the assassination of Phillip II, but you must realize that Phillip had shunned, exiled, and divorced Olympias and taken a new Macedonian wife (Olympias was from Epirus) whose child was to be his successor rather than Alexander. Phillip though was a very immoral man, and his assassin, Pausanius, hated him so much because Phillip had once gotten him drunk and had him gang raped by his cronies. This is something that could anger plenty of people enough to consider murder.

And as far as Antipater goes, it seems most likely that Alexander was assassinated by Antipater's nephew Cassander who was Alexander's cup bearer.

It seems to me as if this author is writing this book for the lucre only, it is marketable because it is controversial to say the things that the book's cover summarizes. If you really would like to know these histories, I'd suggest bypassing this misinformed book and instead reading the ancient sources yourself because they are more interesting than any modern rehashed rubbish and this author is obviously not planning on doing a very good job of transmitting reliable knowledge to the reader.

Read this and be misinformed, Cheers.