Rating: 
Summary: Ritual dancing
Review: "High marks for expertise?" "Scholarly work?" "Not for 'general reader'?" Oh, come on!Now, what this so called 'general reader' is suppose to expect? No names, no dates, no nothing? Why read then? Go watch the ball game. (Don't get me wrong, I have nothin' against ball games.) As for the Paul Cartledge's "Spartans," it's quite well written, though I had some problems with author's style. But English is not my native language, after all. What's more serious, had Mr. Cartledge spent more time checking the Pauly-Wissowa or the Oxford Classical Dictionary instead of ritual dancing around the statue of the Goddess of the contemporary 'gender policy,' he wouldn't have written that Demetrius Poliorcetes was son of Cassander (p. 239). THAT Demetrius's father was Antigonus the One-Eyed (Monophthalmos). Fortunately for Mr. Cartledge, the 'general reader' doesn't care. How convenient. (As an afterthought: details like highlighted buttocks on the J.-L. David's painting are quite interesting, of course, but . . . the almost forty years old article about Sparta written by Moses Finley is WAY more informative and thought-provoking than the whole Mr. Cartledge's book. You can find the article in the M.I. Finley's "Use and Abuse of History," N.Y., 1971.)
Rating: 
Summary:
Those Who Dwell Around
Review:
This is an excellent survey of ancient Sparta. Cartledge gives us the Spartan broth without trying to hide the available facts, although he does try to convince all that Sparta was not really all that bad, and where different from its neighbors and the modern world, better. Because his odd and fairly strong opinion seeps onto every page, I give this only three stars.
The book does have a curious lack of continuity. The various ancient personages are discussed in multiple places and often in flashback, despite the apparent linear chronology of the book's organization. However, I don't think most adults would be too bewildered by the hundreds of names, and that is perhaps why Cartledge used the approach he did. It doesn't appear to be a consequence of having been assembled from an under-edited series of essays.
The index is not very comprehensive, although being able to look up the names of the many characters Cartledge mentions makes it indispensible. But just try to find something about Spartan food, diet, broth! As another reviewer said, it's better to use Google.
Cartledge's obvious admiration for the society of Sparta is also curious. Sparta built a society based on gender separation, eugenics, forced homosexuality, forced child sexual abuse, constant war, enslavement of neighboring societies, and opposition to democracy. Sparta assisted Persian aims by pursuing a course of Greek disunity in a transparent, and very long term, campaign to hold some of Greece in slavery, while eliminating outside threats to its system of slaveholding. The policy culminated in Sparta's soliciting funds from Persia to build a competing navy capable of destroying Athens' "wood walls" and finally defeating Athens in the Pelopponnesian War.
Cartledge doesn't compare Spartan society with the Confederate States of America, which is obviously wise. The CSA seceded over the issue of slavery (yeah, I can hear the "it was about sovereignty" rebel yell from here; forget that, read the various ordinances of secession, read about the laws the CSA passed, the old editorials, even Lee's letter about slavery of December 27, 1856), but didn't practice eugenics (no jokes please), forced homosexuality, forced child sexual abuse, and no more gender separation than any other society of that time. Cartledge does cite an example of an alleged Confederate mother who (probably in profound grief at her loss) claimed to be grateful to God that she'd had sons to lose in the Lost Cause. That may be a valid comparison, or may just be foolish.
Cartledge also seems to think that Sparta always acted in the best interests of all of Greece. It's obvious from his own writing in this book that Sparta only wanted to keep doing what it was doing, and to eliminate outside threats to its own hideous political system, regardless of the consequences to the outsiders. The Pelopponesian War began because Sparta didn't like the idea of Athens' helping them put down one of the numerous and continual slave revolts in what Sparta fancied as its property -- despite the fact that Sparta had asked Athens for the help.
Instead, he stresses the ways in which Sparta was like other city-states, and of the links it had with them, while claiming that the Spartan women were better off than women elsewhere in Greece. I suppose he should include the women of the Perioci -- the disenfranchised trades- and crafts-men held in virtual slavery -- and the Messenian women -- Messene being one of the neighboring cities held in actual slavery.
One thing Cartledge should have avoided was the appendix on hunting, which constitutes one of the "amateur attempts at a sociology and sociology of modern hunting" he descries there. He refers to hunting in the United States as 'hunting' (that is, in single quotes), and generally comes off as an arrogant and ignorant boor. His differences with Roger Scruton would be better discussed in a scholarly setting. This appendix is merely an anti-conservative diatribe, and is not in fact scholarly, and therefore it also doesn't belong in a book for general audiences.
[sidebar] In his own website, Roger Scruton mentions the "hate-site" from Clive Bates, who, as Adolf Hitler was, is an anti-smoking fanatic, as well as another admirer of Spartan society. In Britain, Scruton is apparently widely hated and bashed by the so-called Far Left -- i.e., the single party state advocates -- for any faux reason they can immediately saddle on. [end of sidebar]
The book is worthwhile, but may take a while to get through, as it is a bit hard to follow. The individual profiles are fairly engaging. The DVD based on Cartledge' writings ["The Spartans"] makes a good introduction to the book.
Rating:
Summary: Major Disappointment Indeed!
Review: After reading about Paul Cartledge's credentials ("Professor at Cambridge University", "expert" and "authority" in the world of classics and ancient history, especially in regards to Sparta etc) one naturally expects excellence in relation to the quality of the study, and yet, what one gets is mediocrity instead. To start with, the writer does not follow the basic guidelines in writing history, i.e. he uses the first ("in my opinion") and second ("we") person when writing which is highly unprofessional to say the least. One should NEVER get personal or emotional when writing history! Historians need to be objective and look at different perspectives when writing. It is common knowledge that when dealing with History essays/papers only the third person is accepted, anything else is a sign of amateur work. We are not in grade school, nor are we sitting in front of the fireplace listening to our grandfather telling stories; It is serious academic work! On page 25, Cartledge states: "'Go tell the Spartans!' which has also been used as the title of a movie based on the Vietnam War" What is the point of this comment??? What could possibly compel the writer to bring Vietnam into this? On page 119, Cartledge states: "It was the so-called Middle Gate that the loyalist Greek defense force took up its position; this is where the modern memorial has been erected, to the right of the National Highway as you drive north. On the other side of the highway there may be visited what has been designated, probably correctly, as the hillock where the Greeks made their stand." This is not a tourist guide, nor is it a "visit the sights" brochure. No one really cares if Cartledge has been to the sight so he really does not need to prove that he has. Moreover, on page 244 "the Greek word for civil strife, faction-fighting or civil war was stasis (it's now the Modern Greek word for 'bus stop'...) Hello, Mr Cartlidge??? Is this an attempt at a joke that has no place in such a study or is it just completely useless information that has nothing to do with the topic? Either way, poor choice of words! In addition, "stasis", today is not only used to describe a "stop" (bus, train etc), but also a revolt or rebellion. Remember that unless one is 100% certain about something, they should refrain from using words that indicate absolute certainty. Furthermore, throughout the book, the author refers to homosexual relationships between Spartans (Lysander and Agesilaus pp200) and Thebans (The Sacred Band) as proven fact ("among the innovations they presided over was the creation of an elite hoplite force of 300, consisting of 150 homosexual couples"pp225), when the existing evidence surrounding the issue of whether homosexuality in ancient Greece was more or less accepted than today is inconclusive and the issue itself is highly controversial; therefore, calling for the use of "alleged homosexuality" instead. The heroes themselves would be turning in their graves if they knew what is being written and said about them by people who are either misinformed or are purposely out to distort the truth in following their own personal agendas.
In conclusion, one could spend hours on end dissecting Cartledge's book, however, what is important to note is that the book fails to capture the readers' attention and imagination. It fails to transport the reader to Ancient Greece and to provide a feeling of familiriaty with the Spartans. Instead, the style used is dry, with the book being at times overly simplified while elsewhere overly packed with factual detail for the sake of including factual material as opposed to making a point efficiently or successfully.
Rating: 
Summary: A Major Disappointment Indeed!!!
Review: After reading about Paul Cartledge's credentials ("Professor at Oxford University", "expert" and "authority" in the world of classics and ancient history, especially in regards to Sparta etc) one naturally expects excellence in relation to the quality of the study, and yet, what one gets is mediocrity instead.
To start with, the writer does not follow the basic guidelines in writing history, i.e. he uses the first ("in my opinion") and second ("we") person when writing which is highly unprofessional to say the least. One should NEVER get personal or emotional when writing history! Historians need to be objective and look at different perspectives when writing. It is common knowledge that when dealing with History essays/papers only the third person is accepted, anything else is a sign of amateur work. We are not in grade school, nor are we sitting in front of the fireplace listening to our grandfather telling stories; It is serious academic work!
On page 25, Cartledge states: "`Go tell the Spartans!' which has also been used as the title of a movie based on the Vietnam War" What is the point of this comment??? What could possibly compel the writer to bring Vietnam into this?
On page 119, Cartledge states: "It was the so-called Middle Gate that the loyalist Greek defense force took up its position; this is where the modern memorial has been erected, to the right of the National Highway as you drive north. On the other side of the highway there may be visited what has been designated, probably correctly, as the hillock where the Greeks made their stand." This is not a tourist guide, nor is it a "visit the sights" brochure. No one really cares if Cartledge has been to the sight so he really does not need to prove that he has.
Moreover, on page 244 "the Greek word for civil strife, faction-fighting or civil war was stasis (it's now the Modern Greek word for `bus stop'...) Hello, Mr Cartlidge??? Is this an attempt at a joke that has no place in such a study or is it just completely useless information that has nothing to do with the topic? Either way, poor choice of words! In addition, "stasis", today is not only used to describe a "stop" (bus, train etc), but also a revolt or rebellion. Remember that unless one is 100% certain about something, they should refrain from using words that indicate absolute certainty.
Furthermore, throughout the book, the author refers to homosexual relationships between Spartans (Lysander and Agesilaus pp200) and Thebans (The Sacred Band) as proven fact ("among the innovations they presided over was the creation of an elite hoplite force of 300, consisting of 150 homosexual couples"pp225), when the existing evidence surrounding the issue of whether homosexuality in ancient Greece was more or less accepted than today is inconclusive and the issue itself is highly controversial; therefore, calling for the use of "alleged homosexuality" instead. The heroes themselves would be turning in their graves if they knew what is being written and said about them by people who are either misinformed or are purposely out to distort the truth in following their own personal agendas.
In conclusion, one could spend hours on end dissecting Cartledge's book, however, what is important to note is that the book fails to capture the readers' attention and imagination. It fails to transport the reader to Ancient Greece and to provide a feeling of familiriaty with the Spartans. Instead, the style used is dry, with the book being at times overly simplified while elsewhere overly packed with factual detail for the sake of including factual material as opposed to making a point efficiently or successfully.
Rating:
Summary: OK, but not stellar; video is much better; book lacks illus.
Review: Alas, while Prof. Cartledge has written many books about the Spartans and obviously knows his stuff, this book appears to have been hastily assembled and fails to be either a definitive scholarly history or a suitably engrossing popular history. It straddles the fence, with much discomfort for the reader. Not a bad book, but far from a great one, pleasing probably neither academic or general history buff. I recommend buying the UK edition (sold via Amazon.com.uk) and not this US edition -- the British version comes with color plates and has a superior cover design. (Why did the US edition leave out all the illustrations? Cheapskates.) HIGHLY recommended is the documentary "The Spartans" to which this book is companion; produced by a UK company, it circulates among PBS stations in the US and is hosted by Bethany (or Bettany?) Hughes and bears no resemblance to this book. It is a first-class documentary, full of warmth, intelligence, liveliness, and spectacular photography, and avoids the "talking head" formula of most History Channel/A&E-style productions. It's the best documentary on Sparta ever produced. This book, sadly, is not quite in the same league.
Rating:
Summary: OK, but not stellar; video is much better; book lacks illus.
Review: Alas, while Prof. Cartledge has written many books about the Spartans and obviously knows his stuff, this book appears to have been hastily assembled and fails to be either a definitive scholarly history or a suitably engrossing popular history. It straddles the fence, with much discomfort for the reader. Not a bad book, but far from a great one, pleasing probably neither academic or general history buff. I recommend buying the UK edition (sold via Amazon.com.uk) and not this US edition -- the British version comes with color plates and has a superior cover design. (Why did the US edition leave out all the illustrations? Cheapskates.) HIGHLY recommended is the documentary "The Spartans" to which this book is companion; produced by a UK company, it circulates among PBS stations in the US and is hosted by Bethany (or Bettany?) Hughes and bears no resemblance to this book. It is a first-class documentary, full of warmth, intelligence, liveliness, and spectacular photography, and avoids the "talking head" formula of most History Channel/A&E-style productions. It's the best documentary on Sparta ever produced. This book, sadly, is not quite in the same league.
Rating: 
Summary: If you like bonobos, you'll love ancient Greece
Review: Anthropology today shows us the possible, and some of us see primates as pointing beyond any "human nature" inferred from modern, Western, industrial society. Starting from a very small, isolated and backward population, in a very short time Greek city states _invented_ wildly diverse social orders. You might say "self-consciously constructed" but that is a post-modern belief imposed on ancient history - but perhaps ancient history validates post-modern theory? If you enjoyed Stephen Pressfield's novels about actual Amazon warrior princesses, Thermopylae and Alcibiades, you might find this book the next step closer to the data. Like the Athens of Socrates, or the just earlier Athens of quite literally "participatory" democracy, where they chose commanders by lot, Sparta is almost too much a symbol, an icon or even an ideal for us to imagine, let alone understand. This book neatly balances a lifetime of specialist scholarship with the pure narrative power of Greek history. The truth behind the imagining is neat in and of itself, but can energize imagination without drowning you in details or theory become dogma.
Rating:
Summary: But I digress...
Review: At the narrow mountain pass of Thermopylae, the Greek army led by the Spartan king Leonidas faced the invading Persians in a fight to the death - did you know that Leonidas's wife was named Gorgo and was quite an extraordinary woman in her own right and "had a mind, and a voice, of her own"? It's true, "Gorgo was sharper and smarter than all the other Spartans, especially the men in authority." Anyway, where were we? Oh, yes ... - and won undying fame in defense of Western civilization. That's my problem with this otherwise well-informed book: it digresses much too often. There's little compelling narrative drive to the writing and it appears more to be a collection of "snapshot biographies," etymological musings and Hellenic place names rather than a book one would read straight through. "The Spartans" reminds me of lecture notes in its discursive style - rambling, albeit authoritative - or notes designed to accompany the PBS TV series. "Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em; tell 'em; and then tell 'em what you've told 'em." We read on page 121 that Leonidas - who died with his entire command at Thermopylae - had a son with Gorgo, and we are reminded on page 258 that Leonidas - who died with his entire command at Thermopylae - had a son with Gorgo. Pausanius dies, returns, dies again. As does Lysander and Brasidas and Artilochus and... Events described in one chapter reappear two or three chapters later - with no added value. I understand how some reviews say the book's "like a graduate student's thesis" and others claim it's "too general." Detailed information regarding a sculptor's birthplace or various alternate spellings for a Greek city lead one to believe an extended discussion of minutiae will follow but no, hold on, the author stops and moves on. Then is it a book for the general reader? In my opinion, not really: if you don't already have a basic knowledge of Greek geography, governments, politics, and a rough chronology of important events, you're likely to be swamped trying to make sense of all the book's information. How did the Spartans avoid other city-states frequent civil wars? Was the Spartan's egalitarianism fundamental to their stability? What did other Greek's really feel of Spartan enslavement their fellow Greeks? How could a nation of citizen-soldiers survive with so few citizens to soldier? Why were there no other "Spartas" in Greece? Was Spartan society fundamentally flawed since it had to arm to the teeth even without external enemies? The author could have explored in depth speculative "opinion" questions like these thereby increasing the interest of probably both general and knowledgeable readers. Long story short: Repetitive, poor ("cut-and-paste") narrative, and pedantic. Donald Kagan's Peloponnesian War is a far better model for historic writing than this volume. I read Cartledges' Spartan Reflections in the hope that the book would have what The Spartans lacked but no joy: it was even more academic. You might take a look at Wm. Forrest's A History of Sparta but it's a very dry, academic book - however it reads a bit more smoothly.
Rating:
Summary: Not for General Readers
Review: Author Paul Cartledge quite obviously knows his stuff, and shows it in his book "The Spartans." Unfortunately, it appears that he knows his stuff a little too well for his book to be of much interest to non-academic readers. This is surprising, given that the book is being marketed as a companion piece to an upcoming PBS special about Greece's legendary warriors. Though the book is relatively brief at around 300 pages, it is so packed full of dates, names, places and events as to become bewildering to anyone who is not already intimately familiar with the subject matter. I'm a history buff myself, but I had a hard time following the narrative. The author writes as if he's addressing graduate level history students with a speciality in the subject. Overall, "The Spartans" is very well researched, but will be of little interest to general readers.
Rating:
Summary: A scholarly work
Review: Books for the general reader tend to be written in a very chatty and friendly way; the authors are often non-experts in the field and, although interesting, these books may contain errors ultimately due to the authors' understandable lack of knowledge in the field. At the other end of the spectrum are books written by experts for experts such that the text is essentially unintelligible to the general reader. Finally, there are many books that fall, to varying dregrees, in-between these two extremes, that is, the friendly writing style and the expert author, and this book is clearly one of them. The author is a well-respected expert in ancient history with specialization in ancient Spartan history. Readers get the benefit of expert knowledge presented in a most accessible manner. The prose is clear and written in a very engaging professional style. The author clearly states his references and often adds his own views on various matters - definitely a plus. I cannot imagine a more thorough history of ancient Sparta in such a short book, i.e., on average, there is so much information per page that I, for one, would benefit by reading it again. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ancient Greek history - it does not disappoint.
|
