I read this as a bit of a palate cleanser between fantasy novels, and while it did scratch the historical itch (and also made me realise that I know less about the March of the Ten Thousand than I thought I did), I did feel as though this was not Conn Iggulden at the top of his game.

While the historical events are still thoughtfully and relatively faithfully converted into a fictional narrative, and the battle scenes remain vivid and captivating, the character-work is a little less engaging than in his other historical series. The two main characters are well fleshed out and the transitional development of Xenophon as a leader was natural and convincing, but many of the other secondary characters were a bit flat, and I felt that this was where a historical fiction author could have flexed their creative muscles. This was then not helped by romantic subplot that didn't really resolve, and a somewhat abrupt ending, so the final result was not altogether satisfying.

3* therefore for a good but otherwise not standout read. ( )

Conn Iggulden’s The Falcon of Sparta puts some flesh on Xenophon’s bare-bones account of his embattled march from Babylon to the Black Sea after the fall of Cyrus the Younger. Iggulden’s excellent historical novel presents the Spartan mercenaries more positively than Xenophon does. Xenophon never moralizes. Iggulden lets us know who is acting honorably and who dishonorably. We know who we like and who we don’t. He sticks close to the historical account—not quite to the level of Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, or Gay Talese, but he makes it easy to guess when he is embroidering. The March of the Ten Thousand deserves to be better known in the modern world. ( )

DNF at p. 110. I found this too easy to put down and I really wasn't hooked. I might try reading one of his other books. ( )

To me , historical fiction carries more weight when it ties to something I care about ... or at least heard of. This is a book about about a Greek army (and civilians who followed them) whose army lost a battle and they battled their way back through hostile territory to home.
And I never heard of any of the major cast of characters.

Cyrus was the main character in the first part of the book. His great grandfather was Xerxes. Clearchus, was the Spartan general in the middle third. And the last third Xenophon took center stage. About Xenophon .... most of what we know about Socrates is from his more famous student Plato, and this Xenophon guy.

Brimming with bravery and honor, this book is exhilarating. So much badassery.

Like Spartans in the art of warfare, Conn is leagues, or after reading book shall I say parasangs, ahead of other writers in my book. Well done.





( )

This book covers Persian general Cyrus the Younger's failed attempt to overthrow his elder brother, King Ataxerxes II, and then Xenophon's journey with the surviving Greek mercenaries through hostile territory back to (relative) safety.

I'd view the book as a dramatised retelling of events largely portrayed in Xenophon's Anabasis. And I think that's where it fell down for me. A textbook might seek to analyse or interpret the evidence, setting it in historical context. A novel can set some context but doesn't (usually) include the critical analysis. Here, it feels like events were included because they were mentioned in the original account rather than because they drive this story. In The Falcon of Sparta, the various parties did this and that - Cyrus went here and recruited troops (repeatedly), and then he went there and obtained money (repeatedly) - but each encounter didn't make much difference to the overal plot. Large chunks felt mechanical and bogged down, especially in the middle.This might be because everyone was who they appeared on the surface (Iggulden dips into everyone's heads, so there's no sense of tension or wondering whether x will double-cross y), and there was little sense of characters making choices. Sure, the author is aiming to keep reasonable historical accuracy, but it felt like even the characters knew there was only one way they could go. Plus, there was very much a sense of "Greeks good/noble/brave, Persians bad/treacherous/cowardly" to the extent it feels like the author's biases leaking through, especially as the characters had rather flat personalities.

That said, I enjoyed a lot of it. Military action isn't one of my interests, but I liked seeing the battlefield tactics.