Customer Reviews

Marathon: The Battle That Changed Western Civilization

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In 490 B.C.--2500 years ago next year--a Persian army landed at Marathon, about 25 miles northeast of Athens. The King of Persia, Darius, was intent on punishing the Athenians for their involvement in the burning of the Persian capital Sardis some years earlier. But against all odds, the army he sent to subdue Athens wasn't up to the task. The Athenians were significantly outnumbered. The Persians were a formidable war machine. And yet some 10,000 Athenians and fewer than a thousand of their staunch allies, the Plataeans, managed to send the Persians limping back to Asia. The score card in the end: an astonishing 6400 enemy dead against 192 Athenian and 11 Plataean losses. In his book Marathon: How One Battle Changed Western Civilization, Richard Billows argues--and he's right, to my mind--that the battle of Marathon was a a turning point in western history: had the Athenians lost that day, Greek history, and western civilization, would have developed very differently.

Billows makes his case for Marathon as a decisive battle in his introduction, where he further discusses the three "legends" of Marathon: how the Athenians themselves held the victory up as a defining moment in their history; how, beginning in the mid-19th century, Marathon came to be appreciated by modern scholars as a pivotal event in world history (although in academic circles nowadays the notion of the "decisive battle" is unfashionable); and finally, how Marathon came to be associated with the modern "marathon" race.

After beginning his book with this focus on Marathon, Billows spends the next 150-odd pages discussing the background to the battle. In chapter one he gives readers a thumbnail history of Greece from the time of Homer to the eve of the Persian Wars, including discussions of hoplite warfare, Spartan society, and lyric poetry. Chapter two is an introduction to Persia, its geography and religion, the creation of the Persian Empire and its expansion and organization under its first three kings, Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius. Chapter three focuses on Athens: the reforms of Solon in the early 6th century B.C., the tyranny of Pisistratus and his son, Cleisthenes' democratic reforms, and so on. In chapter four Billows discusses the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek states on the coast of Asia Minor attempted--with the help of the Athenians--to free themselves from Persian control.

Having set the stage in his first four chapters, Billows finally returns to Marathon in chapters five and six. In the former he discusses the battle itself, and in his concluding chapter he provides a quick overview of what happened after Marathon--the political, military, and intellectual developments of the rest of the 5th century and some of the 4th. In closing, Billows returns to the subject of his introduction, arguing again that Marathon was a decisive battle by considering what would have happened had the Athenians lost:

* The Athenians who survived the battle would have been deported and resettled somewhere near the Persian Gulf
* The Persians would have subjugated the rest of Greece
* The Athenians' various intellectual achievements--the great tragedies of the 5th century, the comedies of Aristophanes; the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato; Thucydides' History--would not have existed to inspire subsequent playwrights and intellectuals
* Athenian democracy would have ended a mere 15 years after its creation, a failed experiment:

"What that would have meant for the later history of democratic theory and democratic governing systems can only be guessed at; but it is obvious that without its most successful model, the story of democracy in ancient Greece would have [been] very different and likely much poorer; and the concept of democracy as a viable governing system, indeed the whole vocabulary of democratic politics, would have been radically different."

Billows's Marathon is a sober, competently written book. I think there is some potential, however, for readers to be disappointed with it: the book's title and subtitle suggest that the focus of the book will be squarely on the battle of Marathon and its consequences. What one gets, however, is slightly different, an introduction to Greek history as a whole that culminates in the battle of Marathon while making a case for the battle's importance. Billows provides much more background information than is really necessary for a book aiming to introduce readers to Marathon (the nitty-gritty of Solon's economic reforms, for example). One may contrast this approach with Barry Strauss's The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter that Saved Greece -- and Western Civilization, which, while by no means leaving the reader in the dark about the context of the naval battle, is much more focused on Salamis than Billows is on Marathon. So the title of Billows's book feels a bit like false advertising. It is, however, a very good (if not very exciting) introduction to Greek history that will be accessible to the general reader and to undergraduates.

-- Debra Hamel

Enjoyed Billows' research and analysis of Marathon; and loved his recommended reading list rather than the usual bunch of footnotes at the bottom of all the pages. Also, I agree with his using Greek-to-English letters for names rather than the Greek-to-Latin-to-English (i.e., Sokrates not Socrates, and Herodotos not Herodotus as neither "C" nor "U" occur in the Greek alphabet.)

Billows writes of 490 BC (Marathon) and 480 BC (Thermopylai) as times when battles could significantly change the course of history. He notes these ancient battles are therefore similar to Waterloo and the Normandy Invasion of WWII, and I think he's right. He also notes that in the last 55 years, military battles in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. have not been as significant nor as decisive. Throughout Western Civilization, military might and prowess often appear more important than they actually are.

I also enjoyed Billow's reasoning of why the Spartans never showed at Marathon and why they only sent 300 (+servants/slaves) to Thermopylai--the Messenians and other Helots tended to revolt when Spartans left the Pelopennesos. I agree with Herodotos and Billows, the Athenian's victories at Marathon and Salamis (480 BC) really did save more-civilized, southern Greece from Persian dominatrion, while the Spartan-led victory at Plataia (479 BC) was more of a mopping-up operation of the demoralized Persians and their northern-Greek, Babylonian, Assyrrian, Egyptian, and Hebrew allies.

One more quibble, if a military battle like Marathon could change the direction of Western Civilization; what about the discovery (482 BC) of the world-class Athenian silver veins near Lareion? Who was the prospector who discovered the mines, which paid for Thermistokles' +200 Athenian triremes at Salamis. Whose to say military battles were/are more important than economic discoveries? The Athenians of 500-to-400 BC were indeed a special and lucky people.

I recommend Billows' "Marathon" to amateur-Classical-historians like me.

The majority of the book is devoted to setting a historical backdrop for the battle of Marathon and its participants, mostly focused on the large-scale and long-term cultural and political movements that affected each side. And it's an excellent choice on Billows' part to concentrate his efforts there, because that's certainly the best part of the book. The description of the actual battle is slightly weaker but still well worth the time to read. The letdown comes when the history is over and Billows is left to expound on his thesis of "Marathon as a critical point in Western History". It appears Billows was just looking for a catchy title and way to sell the book. While his subtitle certainly does this, when it comes times to put up or shut up, his argument essentially comes down to "things would have been different". He beats around the bush for 15 pages or so trying to come up with something more compelling but ultimately fails to draw any line between the battle and today that doesn't get extremely hand-wavy.

Stylistically the book is easily readable, if not noteworthy in the slightest. Billows worst habit is illustrating a point he wants to make over a few sentences to a couple paragraphs with colorful explanations and historic details. Then as soon as you grasp his point, he comes back and whacks you in the face with a explicit single sentence summary of it. May work great in lectures, but it doesn't transition well to the written form where the reader is free to digest it at his own pace.

Overall, worth the read for the historical coverage in a popular form, but lacking when it comes down to making a convincing argument on the importance of the battle.

Most of us have learned of the Battle at Marathon in history classes, but know little of the details of the battle nor the events leading to its onset. This well-written and informative book provides information about events in Greece as well as the Persian Empire that led to this conflict. This is a book for those who are interested in a good synopsis of Greek history as well as learning the details of the battle. Of interest, is the question posed by the author "What might have happened to Western History had the Greeks lost at Marathon?" I found this a difficult book to put down and completed it in two readings.

Like Thermopylae (courtesy of 300 (Widescreen Edition)), Marathon is a crucial ancient battle that occasionally surfaces in popular culture but is frequently misunderstood. In Marathon: The Battle That Changed Western Civilization, Billows retells the true story of the battle, as well as the larger context of the Grecco-Persian Wars. The best parts of the book are those try to sort fact from myth. For example, he dismisses the notion that Athenian commanders had to choose between two routes from Marathon back to Athens by proposing the logical solution that the commanders would have split their forces up to reach the city faster.

My qualm with the book is that it spends far too much time justifying the subtitle, namely that Marathon changed Western civilization. At first I thought the title was merely the publisher's hyperbole, but in fact Billows begins and ends the book with lengthy discussions of what makes battles important and why Marathon was so important. At times this becomes defensive. Billows never really convincingly explains why Marathon is more crucial than, say, Salamis, which most historians consider to be the real turning point. For example, Billows claims that a Persian victory would have captured Athens and this would have destroyed Athenian politics and culture. Yet, in 480, the Persians DID capture Athens, but were only repulsed with subsequent battles. More importantly, the discussion becomes tangential. Given all of this, I'd say only about a third of this book really deals with Marathon.

Overall, a good read for history buffs, although probably not as comprehensive or deep as Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West, which covers the entire Grecco-Persian War.

The history of Marathon is far greater than the Olympic Marathon Run of 1896 and hold such value to what we have today.
In a historical perspective, Marathon is the ancient civilizations version of "Shot Heard Around The World"
Persia was the first civilization to expand by such vastness and find ways of taking down various colonies and nations of past
The Persians seemed to be invincible - that is until Greece became the next target of expansion.
Along with this turning point battle, one man made a incredible footed journey as the communication amongst greek states
That man known as Philippides - he was a real runner, but was only spoken about much later in history recap (Ancient Rome).

Billows cruises high, low, and wide over an ancient Greece few of us appreciate. He examines many facets of Greek civilization -- literature, trade, religion, art, miitary training and tactics. Many an author would leave us bogged down in a details. But by making the battle of Marathon his focal point, Billows gives his narrative a pace, a coherence and a purpose that standard textbook recitations of Greek history sorely lack. Who says serious history can't be fun!

And after all, how many history books make you want to stand up and cheer the bravery, ingenuity and clear-headedness of a long-dead people? Quite a feat!

This book was a very enjoyable overview of the political / social and military history of Greece during this pivotal time. Although it sometimes felt like a series of lectures cobbled together into book form, I learned a great deal and greatly enjoyed the narrative flow.

As an author who has written two books similarly titled as Richard A. Billows' "Marathon," I might be accused of bias if I reviewed his book badly in hopes Amazon's customers would buy my books rather than his. But my Marathon: The Ultimate Training Guide is just that, a book that helps runners complete a run of 26 miles 385 yards and my other book with its one-word title Marathon is a novel that covers the 72 hours leading up to a major marathon race, the fictional Lake City Marathon.

Neither of those two books would have been possible if the Greeks had not won the Battle of Marathon 2,500 years ago. I will be attending the celebration of that victory in Athens, so purchased Billows' book as preparation for the trip. In "Marathon," subtitled "How one battle changed Western Civilization," Billows at least briefly retells the tale of the legendary run by the Greek warrior-messenger Pheidippides (a name I prefer to the also acceptable Philipides). After the battle, Pheidippides ran to Athens, shouting "Rejoice, we conquer," only to die with those words barely out of his mouth. Billows does not believe that story, and neither do I, but why question Greek legends? Do we want to deny Achilles, Ulysses and various other gods and mortals that populate the poems of Homer?

"Marathon," however, is less about the battle and more about the culture in and around Greece for several hundred years leading up to the battle. We learn about the Persian Empire, much gentler than the Ottoman Empire that followed several millenniums, but you wouldn't want to live under their rule if you were Greek. Nor would you want to live under the rule of the Nazi-like Spartans, who brutalized their own people while making war against any neighboring states that got in their way.

Billows lays well the groundwork for the battle. If I have any quibble with his "Marathon," it is that he is forced to rely too often on Herodotus as a main source. Herodotus, who wrote a generation after the battle, is considered to be the father of History. He was the first to fully describe the battle using as his sources people who actually fought in it. Herodotus never wrote about a fatal run by Pheidippides, casting doubt on the legend, which surfaced only 600 years later in the writings of Plutarch and others. Runners should not complain, because the legend of the dying messenger inspired the first "marathon" run at the revival of the Olympic Games in 1896. Without that legend, people would not buy my books.

The most entrancing chapter is the short one devoted to the strategy and tactics that caused the Athenians to win the Battle of Marathon. In approaching the Persian army, Miltiades, the commanding general, stretched his lines by robbing the middle to lengthen the ends, enabling the heavily armored Greeks to swarm upon the Persians from both ends. It was a risky maneuver, one apparently never tried before, because if the middle line buckled, the battle could be lost. But the center held, Miltiades' troops prevailed, and as a result the Greek experiment in democracy also prevailed as it might not have under Persian rule.

Billows argues that if the Persians had conquered Greece in this battle and a later sea battle a decade later, there might be no Parthenon, no Charioteer at Delphi, no philosophers to tell us how to act and think as free citizens. Maybe, and certainly Billows is the respected historian and I a mere trainer of foot-soldiers, but I like to feel that Greek ideas would have emerged even under Persian rule, even if we had to wait for Alexander to push the invaders back a century later. I like to feel that marathons would still be run even without the Battle of Marathon.

this is the best book i have read about ancient greece. my frame of reference is a long interest in reading anything on the subject of ancient warfare and golden age greece. i also recently completed my masters in ancient history and wish i had read this book to formulate one of my papers.
the author is concise and pithy in his conclusions and analysis which i tend to agree with in all cases presented. he sifts thru all the primary sources for you and provides modern clarity and understanding while adding a reasonable does of conjecture. i also agree with his conclusions on how and why marathon was fought. he also provides a respectful viewpoint, but one that is not overly in awe of the spartans. there is no overly political bent towards liberal athens either.
the book is a great overview of fifth century athens and sparta. much of what was presented was a review of what i had already studied in grad school, but the way things were clearly presented was very enjoyable and enlightening. there were lots of nice tidbits that i did not know before.
i am also currently reading victor davis hanson's the end of sparta, but once i started billow's book i could not put it down.
my only criticism was a little bit of academic slant towards writing the names of cities and persons of note in a manner not recognizable to the average reader. for example, pericles was spelled with a k (perikles). this made it difficult to be sure of who and where the author was refering to some of the lesser known places and persons.
this is must reading for the lover of ancient greece. but don't be surprised that the title is a bit of a misnomer because the book is really about athens and sparta and their development during the key years that intersected with the persian empire.