Rating: 
Summary: Uneven, but worthwhile
Review: This book is really three books in one: a sociological study of Spartan life, a collection of biographies of prominent Spartans, and a standard chronological history of Sparta. The first two are excellent; the third is disjointed and rather poorly written. I particularly enjoyed the descriptions of Spartan institutions and how they evolved over time. This, I believe, is the best part of the book. Especially interesting is Cartledge's account of the place of Spartan women in the culture. The mini-biographies of personages such as Demaratus, Brasidas, Lysander, and Gorgo were also informative and engaging. Unfortunately, the chronological history bogs down, jumps around, and generally suffers from a lack of focus and continuity. All in all, however, this book is still well worth reading. My advice is simply to scan or skip entirely the portions that drag.
Rating: 
Summary: High marks for expertise, low ones for writing ability
Review: This book reads like a graduate student's thesis. While it is quite informative, it is anything but a pleasure to read. When compared with Keegan's recent work on the Pelopenesian war (as it was paired when I purchased it) this failing becomes even more apparent. Whereas Keegan's prose engrosses the reader and facilitates the digestion of uncountable greek names, Cartledge's prose is choppy, repetitive and serves to motivate the reader to put down his book and look for something more pleasant to read. The use of the distnict biographical vignettes made this an incredibly choppy read. While the book claimed to assess the role of the idea of Sparta throughout history and its impact on our modern day society, it focused entirely on ancient history. While interesting, it wasn't what was promised.
Rating: 
Summary: The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Gre
Review: This book represents popular history at its best. A scholar who has won his laurels, Cartledge (Greek history, Cambridge Univ.) was academic consultant for the series The Spartans on PBS, which was the genesis of this book. The orderly government and social structure of ancient Sparta has excited enormous admiration both among its contemporaries and in the modern day, though it was, in fact, a repressive society where a military elite kept the majority under its heel. A ruling class was trained from birth with the sole aim of maintaining the state system unchanged. Cartledge organizes the book like a television program: segments of straightforward history are intermingled with biographies of famous Spartans, followed by a chapter on King Leonidas, who died with his royal bodyguard defending the pass of Thermopylae against the Persians. Leonidas helped create the myth of the Spartan who never surrendered, whatever the odds. But the Sparta of the myth was too inflexible to adapt as the world changed around it. General readers with an interest in ancient history will like this book. ^BSumming Up: Recommended. Public libraries and undergraduate collections.
Rating:
Summary: A good book with a few issues
Review: This is a wonderful study of the Spartans, illuminating the many positive elements of their society. Frequently the Spartans, compared to their fellow Greeks in Athens, are shown to be chauvinistic enslavers of Helots to fund their semi-fascistic wars fought by engineered `supermen'. But the problem with this frequent analysis and the comparison of Monarch ruled Sparta with `democratic' Athens is that they are simply wrong. Forced Helotization was frequent in Greece and the `Democracy' of Athens did the same practice. In fact the truth is Sparta was just as democratic and in Sparta the people were equals, with equal lands and equal rights, their wasn't even any coinage in Sparta. In many ways the Spartan City State was the most successful country in Greece. Sparta never suffered civil strife, and for more then 600 years the Spartan women did not see `the campfires of an enemy army'. Unlike Athens or the other states Sparta wasn't continually suffering internal dissension or class conflicts, rather the community seems to have been relatively happy and at peace. Some have argued that it was the `fascist' nature of the military utopia that kept rebellion from breaking out. But history shows that most societies with strong central governments like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany were not successful at suppressing their citizens over long periods of time. Thus for things to go so well for 600 years the Spartans must have done something well. By far the most unpretentious of the Greek states Sparta never built large buildings or temples, rather it was in its minimalism that it became wildly successful, and fanatically loyal to its own soldiers. Only in Sparta was the life of one person valued, which is why the second peace in the Peloponnesian war came about because of Spartan concern over 150 hostages taken by the Athenians in battle. This book is an interesting read. The appendix has no real place in it but it can be ignored by simply not reading it. The main drawback is that there is no detail as to exactly how the Spartans accomplished so much with so few people and so few soldiers. It was a major accomplishment for Sparta to field an army even 1000 strong. And yet for hundreds of years Sparta dominated all the states around it, holding almost a quarter million people in servitude in neighboring fertile areas. In the end when Sparta was broken by Thebes no one seems to have wondered how such a tiny community had been so influential and so feared. Never has the world seen a comparable state of such small population wielding such power with the exception, perhaps, of Israel or Singapore. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: A good book with a few issues
Review: This is a wonderful study of the Spartans, illuminating the many positive elements of their society. Frequently the Spartans, compared to their fellow Greeks in Athens, are shown to be chauvinistic enslavers of Helots to fund their semi-fascistic wars fought by engineered 'supermen'. But the problem with this frequent analysis and the comparison of Monarch ruled Sparta with 'democratic' Athens is that they are simply wrong. Forced Helotization was frequent in Greece and the 'Democracy' of Athens did the same practice. In fact the truth is Sparta was just as democratic and in Sparta the people were equals, with equal lands and equal rights, their wasn't even any coinage in Sparta. In many ways the Spartan City State was the most successful country in Greece. Sparta never suffered civil strife, and for more then 600 years the Spartan women did not see 'the campfires of an enemy army'. Unlike Athens or the other states Sparta wasn't continually suffering internal dissension or class conflicts, rather the community seems to have been relatively happy and at peace. Some have argued that it was the 'fascist' nature of the military utopia that kept rebellion from breaking out. But history shows that most societies with strong central governments like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany were not successful at suppressing their citizens over long periods of time. Thus for things to go so well for 600 years the Spartans must have done something well. By far the most unpretentious of the Greek states Sparta never built large buildings or temples, rather it was in its minimalism that it became wildly successful, and fanatically loyal to its own soldiers. Only in Sparta was the life of one person valued, which is why the second peace in the Peloponnesian war came about because of Spartan concern over 150 hostages taken by the Athenians in battle. This book is an interesting read. The appendix has no real place in it but it can be ignored by simply not reading it. The main drawback is that there is no detail as to exactly how the Spartans accomplished so much with so few people and so few soldiers. It was a major accomplishment for Sparta to field an army even 1000 strong. And yet for hundreds of years Sparta dominated all the states around it, holding almost a quarter million people in servitude in neighboring fertile areas. In the end when Sparta was broken by Thebes no one seems to have wondered how such a tiny community had been so influential and so feared. Never has the world seen a comparable state of such small population wielding such power with the exception, perhaps, of Israel or Singapore. Seth J. Frantzman
| 
