Customer Reviews

Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I wondered whether this book was necessary in light of Ernle Bradford's excellent book "Thermopylae: Battle for the West," and Peter Green's "The Greco-Persian Wars," but being an ancient history junkie, I bought it. I could have saved my money. Cartledge's book is long on describing the context and short on describing the conduct of the battle.

Cartledge obviously thinks the battle has some relevance to Iraq and Afghanistan, and strains mightily to find it. One example of how mightily he strains is his comparison of Leonidas with the 9/11 hijackers.

Cartledge can't seem to see the difference between Leonidas' heroic-but-doomed last stand against Xerxes and the 9/11 hijackers' suicidal massacre of innocent people. Let me point out just one minor difference. Leonidas faced, killed, and was killed by men who were trying to kill him. The 9/11 hijackers ambushed and killed noncombatants and killed themselves in the process. Another difference lies in the very real possibility that Leonidas intended to actually survive the battle if he could. Although he took with him only men who had sons, that measure can be seen as precautionary rather than preparatory. As J.B. Bury points out in his "History of Greece to the Death of Alexander," had the Phocians held the pass and frustrated Xerxes' efforts to turn Leonidas' position, and had the Greek fleet at Artimesium held, Leonidas might well have returned to Sparta as the living savior of Greece.

The rest of Cartledge's "modern application" of the lessons of Thermopylae appears as off base as his Leonidas/hijacker analogy. Bradford's and Green's books are far, far better than this offering.

The epic stand of King Leonidas and his 300 Spartan hoplites against hordes of invading Persians at the pass of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. is one of the most dramatic and mythologized events in military history. For well over two millennia, the main source on this battle was the works of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. Now, Cambridge historian Paul Cartledge - an expert on Greek history and the Spartans - uses Herodotus as well as a limited number of other sources to reconstruct the battle and its subsequent historiography in his book entitled, Thermopylae: the Battle that changed the world. The author's central hypothesis is that the 300 Spartans deliberately chose a suicidal course of action at Thermopylae but this was done for a higher good - freedom - which still benefits us to this day. Overall, this book is well-organized and well-written but it does not necessarily convince.

Thermopylae is organized into nine chapters, beginning with several introductory sections that describe the ancient world of 500 B.C., the Persian Empire, the Hellenic World and Sparta. In discussing Sparta, the author is clearly torn between admiring their ascetic military-based ethos and despising their treatment of the down-trodden Helot slaves; the author's inability to discard his 21st Century prejudices and viewpoints appears again and again throughout the text as an annoying distraction. The campaign proper begins in Chapters 5 and 6, with the description of the mobilization for battle of both sides. Readers will be disappointed to see that the battle proper is only cover in the 14 short pages of Chapter 7 - barely 5% of the book's entire length. The author then spends another 50 pages in a rather rambling discussion of the development of the Thermopylae legend from ancient times right up to 2007 and he is not beyond adding pop-culture references from film and comic books. I thought these final chapters would never end.

A central idea in this book is that the Spartans deliberately chose mass suicide at Thermopylae, but the author's evidence for this is rather weak. For example, he notes that in Herodotus' account, a Persian scout saw the Spartans combing their hair before the battle and Professor Cartledge interprets this as preparation for impending death. However, Herodotus actually said that the Spartans did this whenever they went into battle. The author also states that the 300 men sent to Thermopylae all had to have living sons to ensure the survival of their family, but the author never bothers to ask if this was ever done on other occasions. In fact, since Sparta rarely sent troops far afield, it is difficult to analyze this aspect. Actually, the author seems addicted to the suicide theory and makes some odious comparisons with the 9-11 hijackers. The Spartans were professional soldiers who thought carefully about war and they fought other men, not unarmed stewardesses.

The Spartan suicide thesis is further weakened by two salient points. First, the Spartans did not fight alone at Thermopylae but as part of a Greek force that numbered about 7,000 men. The fact that these men could hold off the Persian horde for several days indicates that as long as their flanks were not turned, the position was defensible. Even if we accept that the 300 Spartans were suicidal, this does not include the other 6,000+ Greek troops at Thermopylae. Deployment of a flank guard to cover the single mountain pass behind them indicates that King Leonidas was there to defend the pass, not just offer his tiny band as a sacrificial offering. The second point is the nearby presence of Themistocles' Athenian fleet at Artesium, covering the seaward flank of Thermopylae. Again, if Leonidas only went to Thermopylae to die in place, there would have been no point in coordinating with the Athenian fleet. Actually, the author rattles around with this suicide thesis, offering obtuse commentary about samurai and 9-11 hijackers, but fails to come to grips with the type of mission that the Greek army was given at Thermopylae. Some better examples that the author might have used include the Texan stand at the Alamo in 1836, various Japanese-held islands like Tarawa in 1943 or the stand of the British 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem in 1944. These types of missions are inherently dangerous but the troops involved are not so much suicidal as they are trapped. The author never bothers to ask what would have happened to the 300 Spartans if they had chosen to retreat from the pass once they were flanked, but it is difficult to see how they could have outrun the Persian cavalry. Rather than suicidal fanatics, the Spartans did what any good rearguard would have done - they fought as long as they could to allow others to escape.

Finally, the idea that Thermopylae was a "battle that changed the world" is pretty far out on a limb. While the author was certainly correct that Thermopylae was a `moral victory' for the Greeks this all would have been meaningless if the Greeks had lost at Salamis and Platea. The idea that Western culture was preserved from Persian "barbarism" is also rather parochial, since this entire area was later overrun by a variety of invaders including Goths, Huns and Turks. If Greece had become a minor Persian province for a century or two, it is difficult to see the long-term harm to Western culture in its entirety; Athens might have had to pay regular tribute but there still would have been thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. All in all, this book has its value in places, but when you get right down to it, it is not a major improvement over what Herodotus already told us.

I always enjoyed Paul Cartledge's works despite of the fact that he's not a very inspiring or engaging writer. His works are usually well researched and his command of the subject proves to be first rate. After reading this book, I realized that the author's intent was not to write an in-depth study of the actual battle but the impact this battle had not only on the contemporary Greek world but how it impacted the history from that point on into our modern era. This book is more about cause and effect of the battle in light of history then the battle itself. The battle narrative proves to be limited to one chapter and its pretty short and sweet.

While one reviewer wrote negatively about what the author included in his appendixs, it is just an appendix for reader's further information. I would think that one would be grateful that the author added appendixs when so many do not.

I would also like to point out that I do not believed that the author was making a literal comparison between Leonidas and the 9/11 hijackers. What the author appears to say is that Leonidas and his Spartans willingness to died in losing battle appears to be a lost military trait among the western nations today while radical Isalmic terrorists like those of 9/11 hijackers still got the desire to kill and died freely for their cause, no matter how despicable it may be. This trait may be the reason why the radical Isalm may be hard to defeat.

In conclusion, I would say this: it would be a mistake to regard this as a military history book. Its closer to being a social and philosphical look at the impact of Thermopylae. I would recommend the book by Ernle Bradford on the same subject but with a very different approach. Bradford's book gears more closely to the military history aspects of the battle then Cartledge's book. In some ways, reading both books will give any reader a very well rounded understanding of Battle of Thermopylae and its impacts in history.

I bought Paul Cartledge's Thermopylae based upon a couple of favorable reviews. However, on reading the book my expectation - that the Greco-Persian War would receive an in depth treatment - was not meet. Dr Cartledge has some good information on the Persian's and Spartans, describing their way of life and their differences, but he does not go into great depth. I did appreciate the comparison of the Spartan's to the Samurai in their attitude toward battle and death. The battle of Thermopylae is adequately described but was lacking the dramatic description that a writer like Peter Green could supply. It seemed that Xerxes' bridge over the Hellespont was a cake walk instead of the awesome engineering feat that the ancients felt it was.

I sometimes found Dr. Cartledge's writing a bit rambling, as if someone had transcribed a lecture with all of the quirks and asides of spoken language included. I agree with Bob Dekle and I also found Dr. Cartledge's comparison of the 9/11 hijackers to the 300 was a bit strained. There was also a remark concerning President Clinton's shocked reaction to the savage death of an American soldier in Somalia as being foreign to the way a Spartan would feel the same event. I could not help thinking that this reflected Dr Cartledge's own political beliefs and had no place in a book about an ancient battle.

I did more skimming as I read toward the end of the book, particularly in the sections dealing with the modern legacy of Thermopylae but I was interested in reading that Dr Cartledge liked the 1962 film The 300 Spartans. The maps and black and white illustration are good and, in general, add to the understanding of the text. Thermopylae, for me, is a decent book but not one that I would want to save as a reference.

In an otherwise competent but pedestrian rehash of the Thermopylae story, this book would perhaps have deserved 4 stars. But I reached pages 130-131, and read the author's comparison of the defenders at Thermopylae with the 9/11 hijackers. What possible comparison could the author see? The Spartans and their allies were well aware that they were at war, and so were the Persians. Both had weapons in hand and faced each other. Yes, the odds were asymmetrical. But at least it was warrior versus warior, not unarmed and unaware civilian versus armed warriors. And then there is the discussion of the Japanese kamikaze pilots in WW2. Here again, it was soldier against soldier in war. Each had weapons and each had some idea of what he faced. The 9/11 hijackers were murderers pure and simple. There is no comparison to Thermopylae and the author should be taken to task for it. Shame.

Cartledge seems to be a great researcher, and well known for his other books. Yet, in Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World, he devotes a whole 11 pages to the actual battle. In those 11 pages he uses a few pages to describe what the Spartans wore, and some pictures are thrown in. I was greatly disappointed. You are going to put this book down by the first chapter if you aren't an expert on Greek words, and hate run on sentences. I expected a book with well over 250 pages about a battle to be more about the battle, not about it's relation to "Western vs. Eastern" views. He goes from one topic to the next, and before you know it you are lost in what he's talking about. Paul takes one of the best historical battles to date, and talks about what led to the battle from the Persian side. Then after all that he talks about what the world thinks of the battle. This book has too much information for it to be titled the way it was. Maybe it should be titled....."The Cause and Effect of Thermopylae" subtitle: Don't expect any details on the actual battle. I will say his research is far above par. The amount information is abundant, and the way he incorporates all other Greek states is well done.

After reading Dr. Cartledge's other books I was expecting a bit more information, in this one, than a rehash of Herodotus. Allot of it is just well written retelling of the story of the 300-Spartans. He doesn't add much to the general knowledge of the battle.

He does provide a good map of the area, which is usually missing form other books on the subject. The rest of the book is a description of what Herodotus wrote. He even discounts some of the writings of Didorus, the other known writer on the battle.

He does some annoying things such as writing a chapter on the description of the Persian army and then providing a direct translation on Herodotus' text about exactly the same thing in the appendix.

The good thing about this book is that if you a one who has never read another book on the subject you will find this book very informative. Dr. Cartlege's writing style almost makes up for the stale information. I wish he would put the energy to writing books on other lesser known battles.

I will wait for Dr. Cartlege to write a book on the most significant battle in the Greco-Persian wars-- "Plataea"

I was really looking forward to Cartledge's book on Thermopylae and purchased it the day it came out. I have read a few of his previous works and I had always been impressed. I can't say the same about this book. Was it even necessary for him to write this book? He got off track somewhere in the work and never got on again. It seems like it was hit/miss with the details he wanted to convey- either dead on or not there at all. Not sure about his 9/11 comparison (Islamofascist terrorists using boxcutters against civilians are NOT similar to Spartans fighting for their lives)and his modern slant to things- can't leave well enough alone I guess. Pass on this one and get still the best out there- Peter Green's Greco-Persian Wars. I think I want my money back.

Hannibal

More propoganda. I hate it when I get sucked into a book and then the author turns on the reader with his own views about things. Leonidas a terrorist? Come on! This makes no sense. Obviously uninformed. I read a book about Elvis once, hoping to get the real take on his life, only to have the author turn on him in a fit of jealousy and start psychoanalyzing him, calling him paranoid, etc. If you don't understand greatness, just leave the page blank and save us all the trouble of reading your book.

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