Michael Whitby (1)

In order to cash in on this widely overpriced work, Cambridge University Press dropped all quality standards: Sloppy editing (one contributor repeatedly refers to his non-existent subtitle), sloppy fact-checking (Victor Davis Hanson being Victor Davis Hanson), outdated and language restricted sources, a flawed overall research design and a general non communication among the contributors. In the end, it's a collection of essays of mixed quality, some truly awful, some quite enlightening.

The show more most critical aspect is the flawed research design that breaks down Greek warfare into two periods (classical and Hellenistic) which forces the topic into a bed of Prokrustes. The second flaw of the research design is the presentation of the Greek (and later Roman) side only, a kabuki approach that ignores modern research paradigms and is not helpful in understanding the dynamic element of warfare. Greek warfare did not evolve in a vacuum.

Why the editors let Victor Davis Hanson write about "The modern historiography of ancient warfare" is a mystery to me. Azar Gat has written two books about the topics covered and would certainly have written a better essay. Instead, the space is given to Hanson's badly structured, sloppily researched and biased essay. Hanson whose command of the German language (if he reads German at all) and the literature is not proportional to his wide-ranging statements he makes about the German historical school. Hanson being Hanson, he strays from his topic to modern times, only to blunder about "the (20th century) demilitarization oft he Danube" (the last time the Danube was militarized was during the Habsburg Ottoman wars) and "post-Marxist discussion of ancient warfare" (whatever this means, no sources supplied, which seems to be the general approach Hanson takes to opposing views).

Overall, a very disappointing result. Cambridge University Press should hang their collective heads in shame. show less

I went into this expecting a greater focus on Maurice and Theophylact as individuals than there turned out to be. Rather than being a dual biography, the book focuses on the one hand on Maurice's campaigns on the Persian and Danube frontiers, on the other on literary character and antecedents of Theophylact's History.

I liked it however.

A solid, framework for further reading in the field of mostly Mediterranean history. We have here political history from Theodosius II to Maurice, with a good emphasis on North Africa and the near East, as well as Europe. The sections on Architecture and Religion are a little jargon heavy. One does get fairly lively prose, so it reads pretty well. Spoiler alert: the Western Empire falls! This is the new edition revised for 2000 CE.

Before we start I thought it might be helpful for others to have a list of topics, titles, and authors.

Part I - EARLY SPARTA
-- The Credibility of Early Spartan History – Chester G. Starr

Part II – POWER AND GOVERNMENT AT SPARTA
-- The Government of Classical Sparta – A. Andrewes
-- Trials at Sparta – G.E.M. de Ste. Croix

Part III – THE SPARTIATE WORLD
-- Spartiate Landownership and Inheritance – Stephen Hodkinson
-- Dining Groups, Marriage, Homosexuality – Anton Powell
-- Social Order show more and the Conflict of Values in Classical Sparta – Hodkinson
-- Spartan Wives: Liberation or Licence? – Paul Carledge
-- Religion in Public Life - Parker – Robert Parker

Part IV – PERIOECI AND HELOTS
-- Perioecic Society – Graham Shipley
-- The Helot Threat – de Ste. Croix
-- The Obligations of Helots – Jean Ducat, trans. Stan Coombes

Part V – SPARTA AND THE OUTSIDE WORLD
-- Sparta's 'Foreign Policy' – de Ste. Croix
-- The Origins and Organisation of the Peloponnesian League – Cartledge

Part VI – SPARTAN DECLINE
-- The Decline of Sparta – G.L. Cawkwell

Sparta was compiled by Michael Whitby as a reader for college students. It follows the familiar academic pattern of a brief topic introduction followed by relevant essays.

Who should NOT consider reading this book?

Readers of "popular" histories are likely to find this material dry. Indeed "Sparta" doesn't even have a cohesive narrative story.

The book will also likely not satisfy readers looking for THE ANSWER to any particular question. The approach is academic, which means that frequently you'll be presented with contradictory evidence, various researchers' opinions, and then the current author's attempt to adjudicating the "facts". The reader can expect a lot of conversation about uncertainty, with discussions of why this or that authoritative source bears listening to. Arguments will be along the lines of: XXX says this about how Herodotus may have misunderstood or misrepresented the term YYY. With a discussion following of how this affects the interpretation of the inheritance laws, or some such similar topic.

Who should consider reading this book?

This book should appeal to people who have an interest in one of the selected topics (see Table of Contents). The reader who will be best served by the book will have a broad (but not necessarily in-depth) background in ancient Greek history, politics and literary sources. Which is not to say that you have to be an expert. I certainly am not a classicist and I enjoyed the articles.

Considerations and Summary :::
If you are looking for an introduction to Sparta and things Grecian, continue on with your search. "Sparta" is not a book for novices. You don't need to know any ancient Greek, but you aren't going to get much from this volume unless you already have a basic grasp of Greek sources and history.

In this book, the authors deal with problems of evidence. How to evaluate and weigh historical records. They adjudicate facts and address the problems inherent in historical evidence.

A reader, once they engage the material, will certainly emerge not only better educated about Sparta, but in how a historian works and thinks. And overall, I would have no trouble recommending this book to others as long as they know that it's an academic tome.

Pam T for http://www.pageinhistory.com show less