5 comments about The Peloponnesian War.

1. No book has kept me up at night or occupied my thoughts in the past decade more than Thucydides. The story told here is stunningly and disturbingly relevant for any American. Sparta vs Athens seems an allegory for the conflict between traditional America, of our first hundred years or so, and modern, progressive America from about 1900 onward. Its no allegory of course, and the realization that history repeats itself gives the work an importance that no book can match.
   
   I recall in college taking one of those Intellectual History survey courses required of incoming freshman. We were all assigned to read Perikles funeral oration as an example of how like our society Athens was and of course, how noble that likeness made the two societies. We weren't, of course, assigned the entire book, just the oration out of context. When I finally got around to reading Thucydides years later, I thought back to that course and wanted my tuition money back!
   
   Read the original text. Political writers and propagandists of all stripes make reference to Thucydides to give weight to their views. Don't trust their interpretations. Read for yourself and decide. Skip the commentaries and translations and go right to page one of the text.



2. The history of the Peloponnesian is a brilliant account of a classic war that began as a preemptive attack on Athens by Sparta to prevent the domination of the Greeks by the Athenians. The war began in the year 427 BC and ended 27 years later with the defeat of Athens by Sparta. This history however is only up to the 21st year of the war. Although there are several translations of the work I selected the translation by Thomas Hobbes the 17th century philosopher. It is the first done in the English language. Thucydides was a soldier on the Athenian side which in a sense puts a lie to the common notion that it is the winners of war who write history. The war was finally won by Sparta, powerful on land, and an oligarchy with a communal outlook on life defeating Athens with the strongest navy in the world, and a democracy with an individualistic outlook on life. Ironically it is Sparta's eventual mastery of the sea that defeated the Athenians. Whether or not this bodes ill for America remains to be seen. History is not over.
   
   Thucydides relates not only the battles of the war in some detail describing tactics and the individuals involved, but also the strategy and the politics. There is intrigue, treason, broken alliances, and hubris. The winners of a battle rarely show mercy and treason is dealt with harshly with often entire towns put to the sword or enslaved. Among the combatants there is respect for the strong and contempt for the weak. Truces are often held to bury the dead because the dead are respected by all.
   
   Unlike Homer's Illiad written about one thousand years earlier Thucydides does not mention the gods as having a say in the outcome of the war. While religion is a factor it is not a determining factor in the conduct and outcome of the war. One could argue that Thucydides is a secular account of history whereas Homer is a more religious account.
   
   Thucydides should be mandatory reading and study for all white males between the ages of 16 and 18 of above average IQ. The History will prepares them for war and instill in them the desire and willingness to defeat the enemy. It teaches contempt for the enemy which is a valuable attitude in war. Pericles funeral oration to the Athenians is the most inspiring and most moving speech ever given. The resemblance of this speech to the Gettysburg address is obvious and leads one to conclude that if Pericles could inspire Abraham Lincoln in his thinking then Thucydides' History did so likewise and influenced the strategy and the eventual outcome of the Civil War including the period of reconstruction. The contrast between the Spartan outlook on life and that of the Athenians to the adversaries in all subsequent wars up to the present war on terror is striking indeed. There are lessons still to be learned from the Peloponnesian War and woe to those that fail to learn these lessons.



3. I used this book for an introductory History class. It is a great supplement to the study of the Greek periods. It has a nice glossory in the back for unusual terms, as well as helpful maps. Some of the text is a bit dry, but the reading is not very difficult.



4. The greatest of all Greek historians was the Athenian general Thucydides (455-400 B.C.E.). Thucydides' classic work, "History Of The Peloponnesian War", provides us with the historical framework for 5th century Greece, a golden age of intellectual achievement and creativity rarely equaled in human history. This history is by far the best account of the bitter war between Athens and Sparta as well as the only surviving contemporary record of the rise of the Athenian empire. Thucydides as a master storyteller does not just cover the battle scenes; he records the great political speeches of Pericles, leader of Athens, and Lysander leader of Sparta with great acumen. He is recognized as the first historian to actually go and get eyewitness accounts, visit battlefieilds and research documents and records. This work took him over 20 years and it shows!
   
   The lessons he teaches about imperial over reaching and unreasonable peace settlements are prescient today as they were during his times. President Woodrow Wilson, read this book on his voyage across the Atlantic to the Versailles Peace Conference and vociferously fought the other Allies in making unreasonable demands of the Germans. Wilson learned the dangers that the world would be placed in by backing the Germans into a corner politically and economically from Thucydides book.
   
   As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I heartily recommend this timeless classic to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history. I also recommend you read it with David Cartwright's "A Historical Commentary On Thucydides."



5. It is always difficult and challenging to pick up what is regarded as a classic and read through it in a naive manner, not as a specialist but as an amateur who just wants to learn. There are always surprises.
   In contrast to the looser Herodotus, his near contemporary, Thucydides sought to record an "objective truth" of the great war between Athens and Sparta, in the 5C BC. He consulted multiple sources and carefully judged what to include and what not to include, ito establish an idea of what really happened. While some of the forms, such as elaborately made-up speeches as a study in rhetoric, differ from what we would do today, he set a new standard for accuracy. THe result is a work of genius, the first serious attempt at writing history rather than merely storytelling.
   
   Reading this is not always fun. There are long sections that are lists of occurences, with references to individuals who appear and disappear without followup. But there are also penetrating analyses of remarkable characters, such as Perikles, Alcibiades, and other great generals, who became reference points to the present day. Thucydides also broached the subject of political science as history - how institutions actually functioned - in new ways, with demonstrations of how the unleashing of passions led to their corruption or distortion. Finally, there are chilling sections with timeless insight in human conduct in war, with the full horror of the breakdown of all order and law.
   
   THis translation is also sufficintely readable, far better than the turbid one I first read in college. THucydides is quite eloquent in this version.
   
   Recommended as one of the great classics of Western literature. It is a work of genius so great that it is still relevant and vivid.

5 comments about A History of My Times (Penguin Classics).

1. Rex Warner's translation of Xenophon's "Hellenica" is quite enjoyable. However, the problem lies with Xenophon's writing. Allegedly a continuation of Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War, it is really more of a memoir recounting Spartan triumphs and failures during the period of 400 to 365 BC. Indeed, it should be regarded mainly as Xenophon's apologia on behalf of his Spartan patron, the king Agesilaus. As such it is often plodding reading. It is certainly not as riveting as Xenophon's "Anabasis". Yet those interested in Greek history during this time may find it rewarding.



2. For people who have read Thucydides, this is an exemplary companion to his PELOPONNESIAN WAR. There are likely to be many readers out there who were dismayed at the conclusion of this text as it is incomplete. Of course, this is not the great historian's fault; he died while writing his epic historical treatise.

   Enter Xenophon. He picks up almost right where Thucydides leaves off and traces the murky Grecian politics over the next 40 years or so, after which time Thebes would assert herself as the foremost power in the Greek world.

   Along the way, Xenophon painfully recounts the demise of his beloved Spartans. His distaste for the Thebans is readily evident, and one must weigh the veracity of some of his descriptions of battles against his inherent Laconian prejudice. Rex Warner, the translator, does an excellent job of point out specific places where modern scholars have called into question Xenophon's honesty as well as his aptitude as an historian.

   Nevertheless, for all the Xenophon-bashing that the 20th century has accrued, I still firmly believe he is well worth reading. He is one of the very few primary sources that we have for the demise of Alcibiades, the disastrous 30 Tyrants of Athens, the campaigns of King Agesilaus, the decisive battle of Leuctra and so much more. Hence, the present text is a MUST for the modern classical historian.




3. The title refers to the complete randomness of the document survival process. We know that only a small fraction of the works of Aristophanes, Euripides, Plato, Livy (the historian), Aristotle and other "greats" survived the ages. The Gospel of Mark, which both Luke and Matthew tries to supplant, survived only because the splinter group that used it was located in the desert and the dryness increased longevity.

   Thucydides recorded the first part of the Peloponnesian War and Xenophon presents witness to the last few years. Remarkably, both men were participants and their history is based on first-hand knowledge of the events and people. The city-states of Thebes, Athens and Sparta vied for supremacy with shifting allegiances and no clear winner. The writing is good, very good when one considers the various replications and translations that have brought the work to this point.

   Xenophon introduces speeches and comments of participants and instead of just recording battles and events, he begins the process of writing a moral history - assigning blame, making choices on good and bad, presenting justifications and the reasons why certain people acted as they did. THe author was one of the first of the new breed - those who sought to present human action that was not directed by the caprice of gods or nature. As such he succeeded admirably.




4. As a continuation of thuchides its a little soft. but if you read THE PERSIAN EXPIDITIONS by XENOPHON first you'll feel me comfotable with his
   lighter reading style...



5. This is by all means a heavily underrated book.
   Xenophon lays bare the essential characteristics of his (and our) time and its crucial kernel, independence.
   
   Inside the Greek cities, independence meant democracy, which was the political regime in Athens. The latter's arch-rival, Sparta, had an oligarchic rule, a government controlled by a king and the aristocracy.
   When Sparta defeated Athens, it put immediately a lackey oligarchic government (the Thirty) in place. The oligarchs could `do exactly what they liked with the state.' They went on a killing spree, murdering all democratic opponents, in casu, `more Athenians than all the Peloponnesians did in ten years of war.' They confiscated illegally the property of resident aliens and when people could vote, it was in full view.
   Xenophon knows perfectly the importance of education: `For I know that in Persia everybody except one man is educated to be a slave rather than stand up for himself.'
   
   Inside the Peloponnesus, independence meant freedom for every city: `the cities must be independent, which means not to set up your own government ... what you aim at is not that they should govern in accordance with the laws, but that they should be strong enough to hold down the city by force. This makes it look like as though what gives you pleasure is dictatorship and not constitutional government.'
   The Greek cities fought against each other to become `like the king of Persia ... the richest man on earth ... he gets his revenue from a continent.' The reward for control was solid tribute, but also the goldmines of Mount Pangaeum.
   This continuous infighting and the relentless changes of alliances were a catastrophe for the populations. The inhabitants of the conquered cities were enslaved and sold or slaughtered, the crops and towns burned, cattle and precious metals stolen. The city was completely annihilated.
   The war ended with the peace of Antalcidas in 387 B.C. on very favorable terms for Sparta.
   
   Xenophon's book could also serve as a manual for vicious (bribery, infiltration, spying, informants) or clever diplomacy: `guard against the emergence of any single strong Greek state by seeing that they were all kept weak by constantly fighting among themselves.'
   It is also an encyclopedia for military tactics: where, when and how to fight and how to keep the morale of the troops high.
   He is also a fine psychologist: `people call a man `good' merely because he has been good to them.'
   
   To the contrary of his joke, `even the golden plane tree was not big enough to give shade to a grasshopper', Xenophon's book puts many authors in the shadow.
   
   A must read for all historians and lovers of classical literature.

3 comments about On Justice, Power, and Human Nature: The Essence of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.

1. I can't think of another abridgment of a classic more after my own heart. I am a passionate believer in reading all of Thucydides, but this book is still the ideal way to get to know what is great about the historian. (And, as our democracy is at war & struggles with imperial entanglements, Thuc. is more relevant than ever.)

   Basically, Woodruff has an unerring instinct for where Thucydides (not a mere fact-compiler, but one of antiquity's great thinkers) is at his sizzling & profound best. The introduction is a marvelous piece of criticism and analysis: in merely 24 pp. it acquaints the reader with Thucydides' important ideas. The idea of this book is to give you 185 pp. to read cover-to-cover (if not in a single sitting!--what are you waiting for?--do it, and blow your mind). Woodruff's connecting summaries & brief introductory comments to each excerpt make sure that readers will experience the whole coherently.

   My one quibble is that I'd like to have the defeat of the Sicilian Expedition & its aftermath in all its gruesome detail, but this would have almost doubled the size of the book and defeated the purposes I've praised above. For a complete translation, try Lattimore (also pub. by Hackett)--or, if 17th c. English doesn't bother you, Hobbes' translation is a real treat to savor.




2. I agree with the first reviewer: this book is a great condensation of Thucydides' work. The book is editted to retain all of Thucydides' great insights into human nature, power, and politics, but summarized in a way where all of the essential details of the story are left in place.

   With its sweeping description of events in various areas of the Greece, and its dramatic portrayal of historic figures: the book works as a great description of the nature of politics, democracy and war, and at the same time an engaging study of leadership, and the men who were perported to be great during these times.

   Daniel Clausen
   danielclausen.com




3. The greatest of all Greek historians was the Athenian general Thucydides (455-400 B.C.E.). Thucydides' classic work, "History Of The Peloponnesian War", provides us with the historical framework for 5th century Greece, a golden age of intellectual achievement and creativity rarely equaled in human history. This history is by far the best account of the bitter war between Athens and Sparta as well as the only surviving contemporary record of the rise of the Athenian empire. Thucydides as a master storyteller does not just cover the battle scenes; he records the great political speeches of Pericles, leader of Athens, and Lysander leader of Sparta with great acumen. He is recognized as the first historian to actually go and get eyewitness accounts, visit battlefieilds and research documents and records. This work took him over 20 years and it shows!
   
   The lessons he teaches about imperial over reaching and unreasonable peace settlements are prescient today as they were during his times. President Woodrow Wilson, read this book on his voyage across the Atlantic to the Versailles Peace Conference and vociferously fought the other Allies in making unreasonable demands of the Germans. Wilson learned the dangers that the world would be placed in by backing the Germans into a corner politically and economically from Thucydides book.
   
   I never before recommended reading an abridged work of history; however, Paul Woodruff does the best job of abridging Thucydides that I have ever come across in historical texts. He gives you the basic narrative and makes sure to include all of the important orations and debates from the original work.
   
   As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I heartily recommend this timeless classic to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history. I also recommend you read it with David Cartwright's "A Historical Commentary On Thucydides."

5 comments about The Last of the Wine.

1. This is a beautiful, expertly painted story about two men and their love for each other, their city, and honor. The implications of this love are left ambiguous. One feels as if he has indeed drunk the last of the wine, and it brings about a wonderful, sad dream.



2. The Last of the Wine is arguably one of Mary Renault's best books. Its moving tale of the collapse of Athens into Sparta and its eventual resurrection are seen through the eyes of the growing figure of Alexias. He becomes interested in the phliosophy of Socrates and through Socrates meets various young philosophers and students of philosophy, including Xenophon, conservative but brave; Phaedo, a slave who comes to respect the people who destroyed his world; and Plato, extremely young, but also extremely wise; there is also Lysis, with whom Alexias becomes involved, at first just as friends, but later sexually. The most amazing moment came when the news of the battle of Goat's Creek was brought to Athens. For the time being, democracy is lost; any reader would feel the deep sadness of that moment. Democracy is restored, but rejoicings are tempered by the fact that the people will destroy Socrates, clearly foreshadowed at the end.
   
   This book encompasses all the great features of Athens and shows their rise and fall. It is also extremely moving.



3. I've loved this book for half my life, and I've assigned it to students in Western Civ. classes in universities. Be very clear, now: this is not a novel about the battles of the great war between Athens and Sparta. It's not intended to be like Stephen Pressfield's account of the career of Alkibiades. It's about the decay of Athens' greatness, about the end of the Athenians' belief in their own glory and greatness. It's a tragic book-- about the end of a vision of democracy, about the ruin of a family, about the end of a love affair. But it's brilliantly written-- Renault crafted the language to feel Attic and distanced, and she tried to take up the attitudes and beliefs of her characters. I always read the opening lines to students-- the narrator Alexias blithely recalling that on the day of his birth, his father had ordered him put to death as too weak and sickly to bother raising. Renault's portrayal of Sokrates is sympathetic, human, and sad-- a fine depiction of tragic greatness. This is a novel that I'll assign to classes again, and certainly one that I'll put on my list of books for a desert island.



4. What makes a novel for "young adults"? Is it one written for them, one marketed to them, or one which they will like? The correct answer is, of course, "any or all."
   
   I cannot find the reference, but I remember reading an interview with an author who had been quite successful in writing novels for adults, who had been asked to try her hand at a young adult novel. She was advised that the best way to do that was to make her main character the right age, and go on from there.
   
   Given that the main action of the novel starts when the narrator, Alexias, is fifteen and ends when he is in his early twenties, this would classify the work as a young adult novel, although it is usually marketed and criticized as an adult novel.
   
   The story is set in Athens, during and just after the Peloponnesian War. Alexias and his lover Lysis become pupils of Socrates. However, it is not all dry philosophical discussion. Alexias is a middle-distance runner and Lysis is a pankratist. (Pankration was a Greek combat sport; it means 'all power' and involved anything short of biting, gouging, and hair-pulling. Kicks, punches, throw-holds, grappling, and joint-locks were all parts of the pankratist's repertoire. I suppose the nearest thing we have would be full-contact karate.)
   
   Now, why would a teenager be interested in this? Well, the popularity of such films as Troy and The Three Hundred shows that Classical civilization is still of interest to young people; so does the continued growth of enrollments in high school Latin classes. Both war and sports--subjects which young men in this age group find interesting--are important parts of the plot. And, last of all, it is such a well-written, interesting story that one can hardly fail to be sucked into it.
   
   Lastly, for GLBT teens, it offers us a view of a society in which same-sex relationships are seen as normal, even expected. Indeed, Alexias' year-mate Xenophon--yes, the same person who later wrote the Anabasis; Renault is famous for putting real and made-up characters together--is totally heterosexual. At least Alexias suspects that he may be, but says that (a) he couldn't bring himself to ask in so many words and (b) if it were he felt rather sorry for his friend who would thus have missed out on an important part of life. When Alexias' father goes off to Sicily with the army, he and his son sit down for The Talk--but it isn't about girls. Renault presents all this very matter-of-factly. That such a society could exist once implies that it could exist again.
   
   In spite of this, Renault does not idealize Ancient Greece. The evil of slavery, the low place of women, and the casual cruelty are unblinkingly presented. (For example, the way prisoners of war were treated makes recent US violations of the Geneva Conventions look tame.) Contrast this with the thoroughly judgmental tone of Frank Yerby's Goat Song, which imposes early-twentieth century values on Classical Greek culture.
   
   For a more extended discussion of Mary Renault's writing, see http://www.glbtq.com/literature/renault_m.html (accessed 6NOV07); I would recommend this--and indeed all of her mature period novels--for high school on up. The Mask of Apollo is set about a generation later, and sets things up for her trilogy about Alexander the Great (Fire from Heaven, The Persian Boy, Funeral Games.)
   
   Recommended for high school and up.



5. I did not read this book, I devoured it.... In THE LAST OF THE WINE I walked through the ancient streets of Athens, I lived among her people, I loved, fought, and died beside them. It is that kind of novel, pulls you right in and never lets go. Even after I finished it, I kept going back to it again and again.
   The message of this story is revelant even today. Who can not think of Iraq now, upon reading of foolish, proud Athens sailing off to destroy Syracuse?
   A few thoughts on earlier reviews.... this book is an easy read, the prose is simple and straight forward. One does not need a deep knowledge of Greek history or language to follow this story.
   Homosexuality is synonmous with ancient Greece. It was a core element of their society, and if you can not accept this fact, than you will never understand the Greeks.

5 comments about The Peloponnesian War.

1. I had high hopes for Donald Kagan's history of the Peloponnesian War. My anticipation was fueled by my interest in the topic, the author's reputation and the reviews written by other readers. Unfortunately, the last two points failed me.
   
   Professor Kagan does a nice job moving through the events leading to the war and the chronology of the war. What frustrated me was the uneven analysis, from excellent (the Peace of Nicias) to trite (the irrationality of Pericles' entering the war based honor instead of reason - Kagan treats these as if they are wholly separate; bad philosophy from the good professor) in topics that he is the expert.
   
   Overall, I have found other books on similar topics (ie. J.F.C. Fuller's "Alexander the Great") more interesting and informative.



2. Kagan has written a concise easy to read history of the Peloponnesian War. While I decided not to read Kagan's 4 volume History I don't in away way feel confused about any part of the war. The book reads like a good fiction novel where you just keep on reading to find out what happens next. Every character is this true to life drama is given in detail but not so much that is slows the book down, or so little to leave the reader wanting more. Anyone who wants a better understanding of this turbulent history of the Ancient Greeks needs to read this book. The major themes of this book and of this civil war still ring true today and will into the future.
   
   Anyone considering reading Tides of War By Steven Pressfield take note, this is REQUIRED reading before you read Pressfield's book.



3. Donald Kagan has taken 2500-year-old accounts written by Thucydides and others and produced a book that succeeds on two levels. First, it provides an excellent if slightly dry history of the war that led to the collapse of the Athenian empire. We learned a lot about Athens in school, and in Western world we view it as the birthplace of democracy. Kagan explains why Athens and Sparta went to war and stayed at war long past the point of exhaustion. He also explains how the various Greek cities grasped for power when the two Greek superpowers locked horns. He even manages to explain the budget issues facing Athens -- as in how many talents of silver it took to keep a war galley at sea for a year.
   
   We also learn a great deal about how Sparta and other Greek cities worked, and how they managed to stumble into a 10-year conflict that emptied Athens' treasury. The history is written in a very matter-of-fact style that some make think is a too dry, but adding emotion to a 2500-year-old story would seem artificial to me.
   
   The book succeeds in a second valuable way. It explains diplomacy as few historians do, largely by example. Kagan provides explanations for each of the major decisions made by the cities of Greece during (and before) the war. Countries don't always behave logically, and the logic that does exist in often hidden from an outsider's view. In the process of explaining what Athens and Sparta did, Kagan illustrates the mechanism by which decisions were arrived at. In the process and without mentioning it himself, he tells us a great deal about how foreign policy is arrived at today.
   
   Democracy is supposed to work better than any other form of government, and it probably does. So it's not particularly reassuring to see that an ancient proto-democracy blundered so many times because of the influence of individual leaders with their own agendas. But it sure is educational.
   
   So... read it for the history of ancient Greece, and come away with a better understanding of our own times.



4. Donald Kagan is an acknowledged master-historian of the Peloponnesian War, the great struggle between Athens on one side and Lacedaemon (led by Sparta) and Boeotia (led by Thebes) on the other. The war lasted 29 years (counting only the direct involvement of Athens) and in many ways has the same status for classical Greece that WW2 has for modern history - the world (meaning the Eastern Mediterranean, for the earlier conflict) was never the same afterwards. Kagan has written the currently definitive four-volume scholarly history; this is the lightweight version for general readers - the main text is a mere 490 pages. I bought it hoping to get a fresh slant on a subject I first touched about 45 years ago. That was perhaps optimistic; this is a field that has been ploughed over by historians for over 2,400 years, starting even before the dust had settled on the battlefields. In short, I was disappointed; there is little here that one could not have got from Grote a hundred and fifty years ago (he was a little before my time, but we had him in the school library). To be fair, the material is comprehensive (at that length it ought to be) and lucidly presented; anyone simply wanting a narrative in one volume and modern English could hardly do better.
   
   What it does not do is challenge in any way the long-standing presupposition that, overall, the Athenians were the White Hats and the Lacedaemonians and Boeotians were the Baddies. This bias goes all the way back to the time of the War itself, and stems fundamentally from the fact that Athens had all the best writers - indeed, nearly all the writers, full stop. Above all, Athens had Thucydides, an only moderately successful general but a historian of genius and a participant in the events, on whom all subsequent generations (Kagan included) have drawn greedily. It is in some ways a satisfactory irony that, even once, history was written by the defeated, but that is not necessarily preferable to having it written by the victors, as the ongoing controversy over Japanese history of WW2 demonstrates. What is surprising, though, is that even at this late date western historians should buy wholesale into the Athenian version. We graduates of the 20th century should have learned a little scepticism by now, for the claim of Athens to be the fount of freedom really does look a little thin on dispassionate examination. There's the matter of democracy, for example. To be sure, Athens was one of the most democratic states in Greece, which means probably in the world - but the claim rests on an enfranchised percentage that was about the same as apartheid South Africa's, and with about as much benevolence towards the under-classes. That probably looked excitingly radical to many 18th- and even 19th-century westerners (the ones who really fell in love with the Athens thing), but I believe we can set the bar a little higher these days. That was Athens at home; Athens abroad looks a lot worse. The USA has been much vilified since 1945, often with justice, but it never tried to convert NATO into a tribute-paying empire, nor did it nuke, say, Finland for refusing to sign up. The Athenians did the exact parallel of both these things when they turned the Delian League into a hegemony (using their former allies' taxes to aggrandise and beautify their own city) and massacred and enslaved the Melians when they declined to contribute. Alongside that, the Athenians' catastrophic adventurism in Sicily and their judicial murder of their own (victorious) generals after Arginusae are almost peccadillos.
   
   Kagan does not pull any punches when describing Athenian actions, but he still resolutely refuses to draw any new conclusions (in this book, at least) about the nature of the Athenian state or the Athenians' view of, and actions towards, their fellow Greeks. I guess it's too late (by a couple of millennia) to hope for the discovery of writings from Sparta or Thebes that would tell the story from the other side, far less from any of the smaller states that were trampled as the elephants fought. I believe, though, that the time is over-ripe to critically review the notion that the Athenians were the Greeks par excellence, and that their downfall merits a furtive (or any) tear. They had it coming.



5. Probably the best book on the subject I have ever read. Donald Kagan's "The Peloponnesian War" is a massive tome, yes, it's size is a little intimidating, but it is a big subject. Kagan follows the war from the beginning of the problem right after the Greco-Persian Wars, the rivalry with democratic (yet imperial) city-state Athens and militaristic oligarch (a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society) Sparta. Finally things come to a head in 431 when war is formally declared between the two states (though ironically it is two of their satellite cities that started the fight). The book goes into minute detail about almost every battle of the near thirty year war. The first ten years is a known as The Archidamian War, for the Spartan general who conducted raids in Attica and against Athenian allies. Some heroes come out of this phase of the war. Athenian general Pericles, who tries to adopt a low risk defensive strategy. The other chief figure for this part of the war is Spartan commander Brasidas, a brash army man who manages to whip up a lot of ill will and a fairly sizable army against the Athenians. We next read about the failed Peace of Nicias. Then best part of the book (for me anyway) the doomed Sicilian Expedition. Finally we go into the war's final ten years, which is marked by civil wars, revolutions, massacres and horrible atrocities, horrible even for the time's accepted conduct of terror campaigns. Several key leaders are profiled, though none can possibly top the rouge turncoat Alcibiades.
   
   There are several parallels to World War I in The Peloponnesian War, that is the first thing you have to realize. As I said before it is a big book, at 544 pages, but it is not impossible to get through. It is written for the average reader though it is based on four previous books that are aimed at history scholars). The depth of the book is incredible. Every part of war time Greece is covered; the lagging economy, moral of the troops on both sides, the political infighting that was decidedly counter productive, the effects on the non-combatants, the fate of prisoners of war (especially in Sicily), and the effects of the war after it was finally concluded in 404. As you can imagine Kagan refers to Thucydides a lot, though corrects some of the things he believes Thucydides may have been wrong about (not to mention that his history is incomplete).
   
   I loved this book, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Greek history.

5 comments about A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

1. I am a big fan of those authors like Jared Diamond who try to look at the big picture, but I also occasionally read more "conventional" history which focuses on events during a particular time and place. "A War Like No Other" is the best book of that kind I have ever read. It tries to understand the "why's" of the Peloponnesian War. Why was their a stalemate for so long; why was the effectiveness of Hoplites limited, and why didn't the Greek world realize this earlier; why was cavalry important and why wasn't more use made of it; why were the Greeks so poor at conducting sieges; what determined success at sea; why did Athen invade Syracuse, a fellow democracy, and one very distant; why was the war marked by a greater frequency of atrocities than the Greek world had previously experienced; what was the nature of democracy and oligarchy and what form did social tensions take; why were a few critical battles won or lost. The book also implicitly explains why any one with a classical background might be distrustful of democracy. Finally, students of modern history know the importance of economic might; Hanson, in answering some of his questions, shows the importance of economics in this ancient conflict.
   
   I have a few minor complaints. The maps provided don't always show the places referred to: in fact, the reader would be advised to refer to the map on p.182 when reading the earlier chapters. It would have been helpful if the chapters on armor and cavalry had been earlier. Hanson is a like a home team announcer in sports, the home team being Athens, so that the failure to conquer democratic Syracuse, not just the loss of life (p.212), was a "tragedy". However one may dislike the Spartan state, it was Athens, not Sparta which was expansionist. For a celebration of the Spartan way of life, I would recommend Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Hell", which while a novel, focuses on the Spartan ethos.



2. "A War Like No Other" is classical historian Victor Davis Hanson's offering on the Peloponnesian War - the 27 year struggle between the Delian League (Athens and its allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and its allies) that ran on and off again from 431 to 404 B.C.
   
   Hanson's book is perhaps also a "book like no other" if I may borrow a phrase. Despite the prominently placed quote for the New York Times on the front cover proclaiming that it is a contemporary retelling of the war, this is not a narrative history of the war. Rather, it does exactly what the subtitle promises - it tells the reader HOW the war was fought. It analyzes the techniques, the weapons, the strategies and the tactics but it is not a history per se. The book vaguely follows the course of the war, but often shifts backwards and forwards through the decades of the war and even before and after the war.
   
   Giving this one a rating is tricky. It is well-researched and well-written. Hanson does a tremendous job of linking the events of the past with more current events, such as World War II, the Cold War and terrorism. In a way, you could say that the quote (and title of the book) from the ancient historian Thucydides was really not true, this war was not a war like no other, instead at least parts of it are like every war that followed since.
   
   While well-written, I think that Hanson's decision to break the book up into thematic units ("Fire", "Disease", "Terror", "Armor", etc.) made the book less strong than if it had been told in more of a narrative manner. Hanson provided tons of endnotes to document his work which is a strength and indicative of the quality of work that Hanson creates, it was also quite annoying. Not the notes themselves, but the fact that they were endnotes with commentary requiring the reader to constantly flip back and forth to the end of the book and to keep two sets of bookmarks- one for the text and one for the endnotes. If a writer plans to write additional commentary in his or her notes common decency would suggest that footnotes are better for the reader. The continuity and flow of the main text is not broken by constant flipping to the back of the book. Shelby Foote did this to great effect in his gigantic 3 volume Civil War series. Tom Holland uses both in his book "Rubicon" - notes at the end, additional commentary at the bottom of the text.
   
   As a history teacher, I found immediate uses for portions of the book in my classroom. I read to my class from Hanson's description of life on the Greek naval vessels and was able to use his information to give a brief description of the war and the experience of the soldier. I do recommend this book for serious world history teachers and any afficionados of classical ancient history.



3. I wish before reading Thucydides' Peloponesian War, that I had read this book as it explained what was happening. Many details I missed such as why the Spartans could cross in force so many times and do so little damage and the purpose behind the raids by the Athenian naval forces.
   
   According to the writer much of the blame for the war from the Athenian's side on their democracy. It kept them fighting long after they should have stopped. It also feels that this democracy repeatably got rid of its capable leaders.
   
   Finally this war he feels this war accelerated the rise in Greece of huge integrated armies with archers, cavalry, phalanxes etc all led by a general who did not fight but administered from the rear. This with the development of siege warfare and the post war atmosphere opened the way to the new empire builders that war lords like Alexander could fill.



4. The Peloponnesian War is perhaps the most difficult period of Classical Greek history to comprehend. Those who have read Thucydides' account of the events of that war know how problematic it can be to to follow a strictly chronological examination of the events. Dr. Hanson provides a fresh view in his "A War Like No Other" adopting a thematic approach that delves into the "human predicament" of the Greeks who were caught up in the events of the twenty-eight year struggle. This is one of those books a reader has to sort of "crawl into": what was Athens like during the plague; to suffer through a siege; fight in a hoplite battle and more? Victor Davis Hanson provides a psychological and sociological framework for the chronological events to take shape which allows for a deeper understanding of the people and their struggle. He gives the war both a context and a texture that gives life to the events. "A War Like No Other" is a must for historians and classicists but it can also be a fruitful read for anyone who wants to further understand the ancient culture that is the father of our own.



5. Victor Davis Hanson is my favorite military author. His "The Soul of Battle" covers three generals who led free men and were victorious. This prompted me to track down the biography "Patton: The Man Behind the Legend, 1885-1945." George Patton was a flawed, but fascinating person. Dr. Hanson's chapter nine of "Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power" helped me understand some of the cultural advantages the Americans had over the Japanese in World War II.
   
   "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War" is about Sparta and its allies fighting Athenians. Before this book I knew very little about the war, other than Sparta had fought and eventually conquered Athens.
   
   Dr. Hanson does a great job of explaining the background of the war, who the major players were, why Sparta led the attack on Athens, why the war lasted so long and why Athens finally lost.
   
   These were two strong cities which had vastly different strengths. Sparta had the best warriors in Greece. Athens would not meet them on land. Athens dominated the ocean. Sparta did not have a fleet until Persia financed the fleet which eventually destroyed hundreds of Athenian triremes. Without their fleet to protect the food ships, Athens started to starve and eventually surrendered.
   
   Often while reading this book I thought the Athenians were idiots. For example after years of war the majority of Athens thought it was a good idea to start another war. They launched hundreds of ships and sent 45,000 men to try to conquer Syracuse. They lost all their ships and men. This was the beginning of the end. Almost as famous as "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" is don't start a second front in a war. The Athenians were already out numbered, yet they talked themselves into attacking Syracuse. Another stupid thing was several times Sparta said we've had enough, how about we end the war, and Athens said no, we're safe behind our walls we'll keep attacking your allies from the sea.
   
   But in fairness Sparta and their allies also made a number of blunders. Sparta started off the war by leading a large army up to Athens and dared them to come out and fight. Athens declined the opportunity for suicide, so Sparta and friends went home. The next year Sparta came back, and then went back home. And again. And again. They did they five or six times. It took Sparta a long while to realize that Athens was not going to play Sparta's game.
   
   I greatly enjoyed the book. It was well written, well organized and thought provoking. I'm glad I read it.
   
   If you are interesting in the history of ancient Greece, this is a good book to read.

5 comments about The Isle of Stone: A Novel of Ancient Sparta.

1. I love good fiction the more believable it is. I love authors who respect my intelligence, but don't write like they're trying to overpower me with theirs. I love ANY book, or any other form of entertainment for that matter, that entertains me while taking me out of all the usual ruts.
   This book does all that, and much, much more. After exhausting Mary Renault's books, I've been been waiting for an author to take her place.
   Nicastro has my vote.



2. Unfortunately I don't think Nicastro really presents us with anything new. If he does, it is in the interactions between Spartans and helots, which are largely undocumented and, where examples exist, bias casts a strong shadow. The affection bewteen Antalcidas and Doulos was nice, as well as the moral issues presented when the Messenians tried to liberate some of their fellow countrymen on the island, mistakenly killing them in the process. My real gripe with Nicastro is that he didn't show us anything we didn't already know. I suppose, for someone not as well-versed in Greek history, this would be an exciting story with a suspenseful ending. However, I suppose I expected a bit more: more insight into the character of Epitadas and Antalcidas; more politics perhaps, or maybe just a more focused story that didn't seem to jump forward and back in time. It is confusing when, in Book II, we jump forward 30 years, to introduce the setting of Sphacteria, before coming back to the Rearing. The confusing sense of time and the lack of depth made this book stand out as an example of lackluster historical fiction. Also, the details of the earthquake's immediate aftermath, as well as some discussion of the future would have been welcome. Nicastro takes a great story and retells it, just not well enough for my taste. Gates of Fire is a far superior book about the Spartan Rearing and their view on war.



3. Mr. Nicastro is an excellent writer, one of the best I've read in the genre of historical fiction. However, without giving away the story, I must admit I found the resolution and conclusion to be disappointing and weak, especially after such a strong start.
   
   The book is good at depicting the culture of Sparta. The characters are interesting and have some depth. The battle sequences are also quite good. However, if one invests time in reading a story, the ending is also important, and the ending in this book disappointed me.
   
   Suffice it to say that the most deserving characters get no love from their creator, while the least sympathetic come out big winners. Why? I've thought about it, and I can't find a good reason.



4. I was looking for a historically accurate story about Spartan warriors' fabled training methods and their legendary battlefield heroics. Nicastro delivered both of those things in this compelling novel that was as entertaining as it was informative.
   
   This fast-reading book was centered on the Peloponnesian battle (Sparta versus Athens) over the small island of Sphacteria in 425 B.C. Much more than just a battlefield novel, Nicastro provided detailed insights into Spartan culture, including daily life, socio-economic norms, and the politics of the day. Set in the sixth year of the Peloponnesian War, I enjoyed the unexpected similarities between Nicastro's Greek world and the United States today after six-plus years fighting the war on terrorism: dedicated warriors; a tough, protracted war; and the people and politicians divided over the future of the war.
   
   Nicastro's well-researched understanding of Spartan life and his lively, easy-to-read writing style brought to life the story of this little-known but strategically important battle. I highly recommend this book to anyone, especially military history buffs or those who enjoy reading about heroic warriors and their ways.



5. The saddest thing about this novel is that it is based on a serious inaccuracy: that the survivors of Sphacteria were humiliated on their return to Sparta. They were not. The most significant historical aspect of this tragic incident is that it revealed Sparta's desperation to bring her young men home, her willingness to accept any terms to save the lives of the captives, and the fact that Spartan rhetoric about "with your shield or upon it" was wildly exaggerated. The young men who survived their captivity in Athens were NOT treated as "tremblers" at all but completely re-integrated into Spartan society.
   
   More distrubing, however, is that the portrayal of Spartan women in this novel is a travesty. It is based on Athenian wartime propaganda intended to turn Spartan women (particularly mothers) into monsters. Nothing was more hated in Athens than the educated and emancipated women of Sparta, and this was the reason that the Athenians liked to portray them as heartless and unnatural. A careful examination of Spartan history and sources such as Herodotus or Xenophon (who knew the Spartans personally) reveals the absurdity of the Athenian image. Particularly ridiculous in this novel is the idea of a Spartan woman admiring Athenian literacy and learning. Athens as a whole may have been more focused on learning, philosophy and the arts, but Athenian women were treated much as the women of the Taliban are in Afghanistan today. They were completely uneducated and illiterate and were locked first in their father's and then their husband's home - literally cut off from exercise and sunlight - with no opportunity to participate in ANY aspect of Athenian intellectual life. Spartan women by contrast were well fed, healthy, educated, literate, free to move about the city and all of Lacedaemon and economically powerful. No Spartan woman ever admired or envied her oppressed Athenian sisters - certainly not for a literacy they did not have! It is time modern novelists stopped perpetuating such grotesque distortions about the nature and lives of Spartan women. For any one interested in more accurate novels, read either Helena Schrader Are They Singing in Sparta?, Spartan Slave, Spartan Queen: A Tale of Four Women in Sparta, The Olympic Charioteer or Jon Edward Martin In Kithairon's Shadow: A Novel of Ancient Greece and the Persian War, Shades of Artemis: A Novel of Ancient Greece and the Spartan Brasidas or The Headlong God of War:: A Tale of Ancient Greece and the Battle of Marathon

5 comments about The History of the Peloponnesian War: Revised Edition (Penguin Classics).

1. First of all, I find it close to impossible to rate such a book as this, as it is truly great as an insight into events that happened thousands of years ago, while the writing and accessibility of the work clearly could have been better. Nevertheless, in my opinion this is a 5-star book, as the detail and insight into a war that took place ~400bc is such a great read.
   Thucydides shows a himself as a great analyst of the conficts he relates, and instead of just relating the facts, he guides us through the actors motivations and the reasons for what takes place. THAT is the value of this book as far as I'm concerned, the strategic approach to conflict, and the massive amount of strategy in regards to alliances and battles that we get to share through this book.
   Being a student of political philosophy I read this book because of my fascination with Thomas Hobbes (Allthough not the Hobbes-translation). It will be hard for anyone to understand Hobbes through this though, and I must question the usefulness for most of such a linkage on the whole. There is also a lot of history in this book that will interest a lot of you (Those that are like me), rather little, but one gets through it, and when one is done with the book I truly feel I have gotten a great lecture in strategy and conflict!



2. This is one of the early classic "histories" written. Of course, Herodotus had written his "History" before. But his acceptance of the role of gods in history renders Thucydides' hard-headed accounts of the Greek internecine warfare a further advance in historiography. Thus, we begin to experience something like a real history in this volume (and that does not denigrate the real contributions of Herodotus).
   
   This is a nice volume. The Introduction by M. I. Finley sets the stage; the translation by Rex Warner is (as far as I can tell) serviceable. The work of Thucydides comes through in this collaboration.
   
   Thucydides' focus is on the origins of this bloody inter-Greek war. The forces of Athens (and her allies) against Sparta (and her allies) is the center of this work. He notes the cause (page 49): "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." This is, as noted earlier, a fairly hard-headed view of history. To use contemporary terms, the author was something like a "realist."
   
   Some major parts of the work. . . . One of these is the funeral oration by Pericles, the Athenian leader. He spoke of what made Athens special. His death, according to Thucydides, was harmful to the Athenian cause. He says (page 163): "For Pericles had said that Athens would be victorious if she bided her time and took care of the navy, if she avoided trying to add to the empire during the course of the war, and if she did nothing to risk the safety of the city itself. But his successors did the exact opposite. . . ."
   
   This work has much of interest in it. Just one example. The Melian dialogue featured a debate between the Melians and Athenians. The Melians argued that morality was on their side. The Athenians acknowledged the argument, but also noted that they had the numbers and the weapons. This is an early debate between two schools of thought in international relations--idealists versus realists. The hard-nosed attitude of the Athenians won out in this case. . . .
   
   In some ways, Thucydides is best understood by reading Herodotus and then comparing the two, so that one can get a sense of one of the first historians and then someone who adopts a different posture as historian. This is a very good version of Thucydides (from someone who cannot read Greek, by the way). Well worth looking at if a person is interested in the devastating Peloponnesian War.



3. I am a total history buff and this book has really expanded my knowledge. Great to use in class to gain that upper hand in the philosophical arguments. I highly suggest you pick it up.



4. A true masterpiece of historical literature. As modern today as it was when written. Any understanding of human and national behavior is incomplete without a thorough understanding of Thucydides' magnificient work. One of those works you could read every year of your life and never quite come to terms with the totality of the lessons it contains.



5. There are three main translations of Thucydides available for the English reader:
   
   Thomas Hobbes' 1628 version. Although made over 300 years ago this translation is still considered a classic by many in the English-speaking world. His vigorous and lively Jacobean English prose will enchant those more literary minded souls, but Hobbes version has been noted for some inaccuracies due to the lack of proper understanding of the original Greek language text.
   
   William Smith's 1754 translation. Most know of Crawley and Hobbes works but Smith's excellent 18th century version has been almost forgotten. Smith's prose is as majestic and virile as Hobbes while avoiding the sometimes vapid modernity of Crawley and Warner. While a bit hard to read for most modern readers Smith's prose is worth the effort if you stick with him. Some things were not meant to be "dumbed down".
   
   Rex Warner's Penguin edition. This is the version offered here. Warner is excellent for those who want to avoid the archaic and more challenging prose of Hobbes, Smith, or Crawley. He is very clear and lucid in his rendition of the text. For those of you who are first embarking on your exploration of Thucydides I would recommend this edition.

5 comments about Tides of War.

1. Though advertised as being about Alkibiades, the novel is more about the character Polemides, and his life as an Athenian mercenary turned traitor.
   
   Telling his tale in post-war Athens, locked up for trivial charges masking that of his role in killing Alkibiades, to his defender Jason, who is in turn telling the tale decades later to his grandson (sounds confusing, but it isn't very), Polemides' tale mirrors Pressfield's ultra-gritty style which both repulsed and attracted me to "Gates of Fire". Unlike that novel, Polemides is not a glorious Spartiate following a great and humble King to eternal glory and the salvation of Greece. He is a man who has tasted war with Sparta, and is disillusioned by peace in Athens. Then the plague hits, and he is horrified by its ravages, and its leading to the death of his fiance', sister, and father.
   
   He is friends with Alkibiades, but Alkibiades is a minor character for the first half of the book.
   
   From the Arcadian Telamon, Polemides becomes a mercenary, and Pressfield's writing genius assaults us with the utter inhuman hell of mercenary life so brutally I had to stop reading and only returned to it six months later.
   
   The discovery and often disillusionment of the truth of the war is unprecedented. Polemides just as easily fights for Spartan allies as he does for Athenian allies. There is no difference for him. The Sparta of myth, glorious and incorruptible, is just that, a myth, as the infamous Lysander and others embark on a series of political manipulation, an assassination, and the sort of intrigue you'd expect from a Persian or Roman imperial court.
   
   Sicily is the turning point, as a condemned Alkibiades flees to Sparta, and convinces them to dispatch a general to Syracuse, who rallies the Sicilians and smashes two Athenian armies. Polemides loses his friends and his brother, and is enslaved in a brutal mine that defies humanity. Only by virtue of his friendship with Alkibiades is he set free and sent to Athens to heal.
   
   From there, he accompanies Alkibiades in his naval campaigns in the Hellespont, his defection back to Athens, massing allies in Thrace, all up until the defeat of Athens by Lysander and Persia, and Alkibiades' assassination, to the fall of Athens.
   
   Written in typical Pressfield fashion, easily combining gritty reality with romance, Tides of War is a gritty, difficult, and grueling masterpiece that painfully and masterfully shows the true nature of ancient Greece.



2. "Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield was as enjoyable to listen to as it is long. The book covers the storied life of Alcibiades Cleiniou Scambonides, favored son of Athens, during the city's 27 years of war with Sparta.
   
   Alcibiades' life provides a rich pretext for the Peloponnesian War that doomed Greece from its early preeminence in world affairs. Had the Greek states united behind the conquest of Sicily by the Athenians and Alcibiades in 410 BC, one is left to wonder if the whole of Italy and the nescient state of Rome would have come under the Greek rule.
   
   Instead, as Athens turned on Alcibiades and forced him to abdicate as commanding general, the Spartans aided Sicily in its defense, which eventually routed and destroyed the 60,000-man, invading Athenian army.
   
   That was only one of a numbers turns and twists in the historical account of Alcibiades, who made a career out of double-crossing and duplicity. Pressfield does a masterful job telling his story while coloring in the context, including making Socrates a Alcibiades compatriot and using his state-sentenced death a critical part of the story's climax.
   
   As a would-be writer, I greatly appreciate the scaffolded approach to storytelling that Pressfield uses to allow first person accounts of battles, while allowing objective views of the characters and situation when and where appropriate.
   
   If you have the time, this book is well worth the read (or the listening).



3. Like most of Pressfield's work this book is exceptionally written and has a great plot with complex and interesting characters. The story loses interest at some points though, mainly during long political discussions which take up pages with monologues; and during strategic discussions which bring an interesting historical perspective but are not interesting or exciting to the story.
   
   "Gates of Fire" is one of the best books I've ever read, and I have enjoyed everything from Pressfield, but to enjoy this book you have to enjoy the historic aspect as well because the plot alone is dry for long stretches.
   
   Overall, I would definatly reccomend it for a fan of the period, or anyone who wants to learn about the Peloponnesian War with some fiction thrown in for entertainment.



4. My take on this work of fiction is that it revealed another facet of the 'traitor' Alcibiades, the guy who fought for and against Athens, had more adventures than Indiana Jones could have ever imagined, and yet was portrayed, not as a cartoon, but as a very real and very complicated historical figure. Certainly this is not a work of scholarship but the research demanded of the novel was epic, in itself. The military locations, politics, and changing 'tides' of the course of history maintained an excellent linear perspective. The characters were fleshed out and, to the extent necessary in this work of fiction, historically accurate. The descriptions of the seaports, tools of the military, and hardships suffered on all side were well studied and presented in a very readable manner
   
   Bottom line... You need to know Sophicles from Socrates and have a basic knowledge of the Peloponnesian war before you can wring you full monies-worth of enjoyment from this book. It requires patience to slog through the Greek names. That being said, once you finish this semi-fictional account of a very real historical person your appetite for more information will be whetted in a way you won't belive. After this book, then, move on to Donald Kagan's work THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR



5. "Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield, ©2000
   
   This historical novel is very good. Mr Pressfield did his homework to write this book. I am not schooled in the intricacies of ancient history, but you got the feeling that this was an accurate book. The speeches he recorded and the notions he has the characters express, to my understanding, seem like ones that would have been found back then.
   It is to be noted that this story is set at the beginning of human understanding. The major philosophers had just begun to think the notions of what is beauty, or love, or government. In this book Alcibiades, expostulates on military tactics and leadership, on politicians, etc. Socrates does the same in other subjects. It is rather faithful to what the notions of life and living must have been, such as entertainment around the military campfire, or the debates in the Athenian or Spartan assemblies.
   There is the juxtaposing of Sparta and Athens, Lysander and Alcibiades, that are two sides of the same coin. It puts the growth of human understanding out front: one thinks one way, the other thinks another. Because Sparta won the Peloponnesian War, it is necessary that the choices of culture and society of Sparta becomes the choices that win battles, but it must not be seen as the real reason for the winning of the war. This is a novel. What really happened in reality is lost in the past, even the reality of the Boer War is lost in the past and that is not much more than a hundred years old.
   In the end there is a very good rendering of a Socratic argument on following the law. This is not taken as applicable in all instances, though it is spoken of as a good and true philosophy. It is only in retrospect that you realize that this has happened. As you read, you want the law to be thwarted, because it makes good sense in the story, but it does not hold true to the philosophy expounded by Socrates.

5 comments about The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War.

1. No, my title is not just playing off some "American Dream" story. Thucydides is considered to be the first moder historian. He wrote about the Greek wars, while studying human nature, and it produced this masterpiece which can honestly be considered a blueprint for all future wars and why people fight it because he was not just telling the "what's" of this great war, but the "why's." If you want to know the history of the Pelopennesian War, this book is for you. If you want to understand why people fight wars - throughout history - this book is for you. If you are a student of human nature, this book is for you.
   
   A must have on the shelf of every student of history, philosophy, sociology, or liberal arts!



2. Like the Landmark Herodotus, this version of Thucydides; work is unparalleled. The maps and the notes, not to mention a brief synopsis of each chapter makes the work fit in its own context.
   A must by for any ancient historian.



3. Don't let the fact this book was written over 2,000 years ago sway you from reading it! I'll admit I was hesitant about reading Thucydides because I'm not a big fan of non-fiction or a serious military history buff, and more specifically, was never that interested in ancient Greek history.
   
   However, after I happened to watch the movie 300 (I know, that movie is basically all fantasy and action Hollywood style, but it was still good!) I became instantly fascinated by the history behind the movie and started buying books on the ancient Greeks to learn more.
   
   Prior to investing the money into purchasing this version of the History of the Peloponnesian War, I borrowed a different version at the library that didn't include maps or appendices to explain about ancient Greek society and life. That was a wrong move for a novice! It is imperative that you read Thucydides with lots of maps of ancient Greece so you can follow the narrative of battles taking place around Attica, Peloponnese, and surrounding islands. It is easier to understand what is going on if you have good maps. The Landmark Thucydides was very helpful in that regard. There are enough maps scattered throughout the book, in addition, with side margins and footnotes that I felt were very helpful for the beginner. The book is quite hefty so you'll have a hard time lugging it around, but all you really need is a quiet spot to settle down and read.
   
   I was pleasantly surprised to find that this book didn't really read as a "history book". It had a story-like quality and feel to the narrative that I enjoyed immensely and I found myself quickly enthralled. At times I had to stop and remember that this author has been dead and gone for over 2,000 years. Thucydides' words literally came alive from the pages, and it was eerie how many things he observed so long ago still hold true today.
   
   I have only read this translation (Crawley), and although it isn't written in a direct style of English, I found it was surprisingly easy to read. It took me a few pages to become accustomed to it, but I became so engrossed in Thucydide's narrative that it wasn't really an issue for me. I would recommend reading this book slowly, it's not meant to be read quickly, but to savor and ponder over what you have just read.
   
   If you've ever had a passing interest in ancient Greek history, in particular ancient military battles, Thucydides would be a good starting point.



4. This is a superb edition of one of the greatest books ever written. However, there is a MAJOR CAVEAT: the paperback edition has a TERRIBLE BINDING, and will fall apart on you as you read it, guaranteed. This happened to every student in our class. Such a fantastic edition of a classic should obviously be sewn, rather than glued, but the publisher has apparently tried to cheap it out with an inferior glued binding which, I repeat, WILL NOT LAST. We wrote the publisher as a group, but did not receive an adequate reaponse. By all means, use this edition, but if you want to keep it, BUY THE HARDCOVER.



5. Thank you for your timely service. The book was brand new and arrived in excellent condition.