Persian Fire: First World Empire And The Battle For The West (2005)

Excellent. Really enjoyable history of the early Persian Empire and it's conflicts with the various city-states of Greece around 500BC. I'm not usually a fan of MilHist but the accounts of the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis were as exciting as any thriller! ( )

Persian Fire is the second non-fiction book written by the popular historian Tom Holland. It is written in an easy-going narrative style that made his first book Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic so successful. Where Holland took up the subject of the late Roman Republic, Persian Fire explores the Persian Wars. The first half of the book is about Spartan militarism and the rise of democracy in Athens, while the second part is about the Greco-Persian Wars (Battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Platae specifically).

Unlike the late Roman Republic, our sources about the Persian Wars are sketchy. Most of our information comes from Herodotus, although books such as Pierre Briant’s Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire use Iranian sources. Herodotus has had a reputation of not being a reputable source. But Holland states "the past few decades have brought about a fundamental reappraisal of his accuracy; again and again, archaeological discoveries have demonstrated the reliability of his claims." So this story is told from the Greek perspective.

Unlike Zack Snyder’s movie 300, Holland doesn't portray the Persians as demonic monsters. He shows the Persian Kings strengthens and weakness, which make the feel human, rather than caricatures. He even makes subtle impressions that the slavery of Persian was mild in comparison on the Spartan helots. There is a tendency, especially in film, to glorify the Spartans while ignoring their negative attributes. Holland brings this issue to light.

Although the second part of the book is war, Holland injects a humanistic element into the story that cannot be known. What were the Greeks thinking as the mass horde approached the beach of Marathon? Holland’s speculations are obvious, so there is no confusing fact with fiction. One of the most interesting scenes in the second half is when the Greeks – mostly women - had to evaluate the city. In Greek society, women were force to stay locked up in their houses; the only ones seen in public were prostitutes. The mental strengthen needed to leave one’s country and homes must have been great.

The weaknesses in the book were the Battles of Salamis and Platae. The Battle of Salamis was a complex battle and I found myself getting lost in Holland’s explanations. The book contains several helpful maps, but I found myself backtracking. Then there is the Battle of Platae. Despite its importance - it was the final land battle - I always had problems visualizing the topography. I also never found this battle interesting, so I this is more of a personal issue.

So in summary, Holland gives the reader a highly-readable overview of the Persian wars and how these battles fit the bigger picture. His portrayal of the Persian is more realistic than the grotesque portrayal of them in modern films. It is easy to trivialize these wars, since we have been exposed to them so much. If the Greek would have lost, Holland speculates the world would probably be a very different place. I don’t totally buy into the idea that this was a clash of civilizations, but Holland puts the importance of these wars in perspective.

Good Overview - But Only One Side of The Story
( )

The narrative approach dd not work for me. I found it slow and tedious, lacking interest. ( )

Greeks vs. Persians, 5th century BC

Finally finished! This one went on forever, mostly because I kept misplacing the book. But I'm done, and I have to say, I don't like any of these guys very much. I was honestly hoping for the Persians to beat up the Greeks (again), but of course, Sparta and all that. I really enjoyed it, but a little too much detail. I wanted to get on with the main event, but there was a LOT of build up and a lot of names to keep straight. I could have done with a glossary in the back to keep them all straight. And after the intro which ties in much of the conflict between Middle East and the West to this very conflict, I would like to have the author wrap it up again and tie it back into the present. Still, 4 stars. ( )

Most ancient history books about the Persian wars of Greece are colored by the viewpoint of the victors, the Greeks. This author tries (and succeeds) to present more of what it would have looked like to the Persians. Historians might not like the amount of unverified speculation indulged in, it makes for a good read. It once again demonstrates to me just how absolutely remarkable the Greeks were in coming up with democracy, flawed as it may have been. ( )