![]() |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amazon.com Textbooks Store
Shop the Amazon.com Textbooks Store and save up to 70% on textbook rentals, 90% on used textbooks and 60% on eTextbooks. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
With that in mind, it is natural that Cartledge would be the preferred choice to write a mainstream book about the history of the Spartans. That, in fact, is precisely what he has done with the present study. This is by far the most accessible works in the Cartledge canon; prior knowledge of Greek history is not necessary to engage the text.
By the same token, what must be remembered is that this is an overview of Lacedamon history. While most everyone will learn a great deal from this work (whether they possess an understanding of classical history or not), I would nevertheless recommend other works by Cartledge for those who wish to dig deeper into the Spartan archives. SPARTAN REFLECTIONS would be a good place to start.
One of the few beefs I have w/the present work is that the author tends to skip around chronologically quite a bit. While not a serious impediment for one to decide against purchasing this book, it nevertheless can get a wee bit annoying.
Possibly the very best attribute of this work is that it gives a balanced portrayal of the ancient Lacedamons. It is easy for we moderns to have an enormous admiraton for their military prowess and at the same time be mortified by the reprehensible way in which they treated their slaves (Helots).
Both of these reactions are all too human. Some authors have concentrated soley on the one while neglecting the other. Cartledge, on the other hand, strikes a nice Aristotelian Golden Mean. He does not deify the Spartans, nor does he demonize them. Rather, he simply tells us of their history the way it really happened.
If you're looking for an introductory book on Spartan history, this just might be an ideal place to start. In addition to the standard text are myriad paintings as well as some photographs of Spartan artifacts. All-in-all, a must-have book for the philhellene.
That's my problem with this otherwise well-informed book: it digresses much too often. There's little compelling narrative drive to the writing and it appears more to be a collection of "snapshot biographies," etymological musings and Hellenic place names rather than a book one would read straight through. "The Spartans" reminds me of lecture notes in its discursive style - rambling, albeit authoritative - or notes designed to accompany the PBS TV series.
"Tell 'em what you're going to tell `em; tell `em; and then tell `em what you've told `em." We read on page 121 that Leonidas - who died with his entire command at Thermopylae - had a son with Gorgo, and we are reminded on page 258 that Leonidas - who died with his entire command at Thermopylae - had a son with Gorgo. Pausanius dies, returns, dies again. As does Lysander and Brasidas and Artilochus and... Events described in one chapter reappear two or three chapters later - with no added value.
I understand how some reviews say the book's "like a graduate student's thesis" and others claim it's "too general." Detailed information regarding a sculptor's birthplace or various alternate spellings for a Greek city lead one to believe an extended discussion of minutiae will follow but no, hold on, the author stops and moves on. Then is it a book for the general reader? In my opinion, not really: if you don't already have a basic knowledge of Greek geography, governments, politics, and a rough chronology of important events, you're likely to be swamped trying to make sense of all the book's information.
How did the Spartans avoid other city-states frequent civil wars? Was the Spartan's egalitarianism fundamental to their stability? What did other Greek's really feel of Spartan enslavement their fellow Greeks? How could a nation of citizen-soldiers survive with so few citizens to soldier? Why were there no other "Spartas" in Greece? Was Spartan society fundamentally flawed since it had to arm to the teeth even without external enemies? The author could have explored in depth speculative "opinion" questions like these thereby increasing the interest of probably both general and knowledgeable readers.
Long story short: Repetitive, poor ("cut-and-paste") narrative, and pedantic. Donald Kagan's Peloponnesian War is a far better model for historic writing than this volume. I read Cartledges' Spartan Reflections in the hope that the book would have what The Spartans lacked but no joy: it was even more academic. You might take a look at Wm. Forrest's A History of Sparta but it's a very dry, academic book - however it reads a bit more smoothly.
Overall, "The Spartans" is very well researched, but will be of little interest to general readers.