The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge

by Paul Anthony Rahe

A fresh appreciation of the pivotal role of Spartan strategy and tactics in the defeat of the mightiest empire of the ancient world

More than 2500 years ago a confederation of small Greek city-states defeated the invading armies of Persia, the most powerful empire in the world. In this meticulously researched study, historian Paul Rahe argues that Sparta was responsible for the initial establishment of the Hellenic defensive coalition and was, in fact, the most essential player in its ultimate victory.

Drawing from an impressive range of ancient sources, including Herodotus and Plutarch, the author veers from the traditional Atheno-centric view of the Greco-Persian Wars to examine from a Spartan perspective the grand strategy that halted the Persian juggernaut. Rahe provides a fascinating, detailed picture of life in Sparta circa 480 B.C., revealing how the Spartans’ form of government and the regimen to which they subjected themselves instilled within them the pride, confidence, discipline, and discernment necessary to forge an alliance that would stand firm against a great empire, driven by religious fervor, that held sway over two-fifths of the human race.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Greece, War, Ancient History, Ancient, Military History

432 pages, Paperback

First published November 24, 2015

About the author

Paul A. Rahe is the Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage and professor of history at Hillsdale College. His previous books include the seminal three-volume work Republics Ancient and Modern. Rahe lives in Hillsdale, MI.

Reviews

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great history of the Greco-Persian Wars from the Spartan perspective. Also an impressive study in the analysis of source material; Rahe is very transparent about how he uses primary sources, why he favors one over another with respect to X or Y event, and talks at length about how he uses things like geography, weather, archaeological findings, and so forth to make sense of what they report. Some might find this a little discursive, but if you're interested in how the history sausage gets made, it's an invaluable read.

Thoughts from my read:

* You can't understand Sparta without understanding that everything they did (or didn't do) had to take the helots into account. The Spartan way of life depended entirely on the slave labor provided by the helots, but the Spartans were massively outnumbered by their slaves. The Spartans knew they were riding the tiger and their society reflected it. Other books that I've read about Sparta discuss this, but Rahe makes this clear as day and drives the point home repeatedly. Any foreign policy decision made by the state had to consider the helots.

* Ghela. In the 1930s, archaeologists found a brick inscribed in Old Persian and attributed to Darius. That's not particularly interesting until you consider that Ghela is in northwestern Romania. The high water mark of the Persian empire? "...Herodotus reports that, in his time, there lived beyond the Danube a mysterious people called the Sigynnae, who dressed in the Median manner and claimed to be colonists drawn from among the Medes." Reminds me of colonies of Alexander's Greeks after the collapse of his empire and the slow disintegration of the successor states. How long did the Sigynnae manage to cling to their Median-ness so far from home?

* Thermopylae and Sparta. The stand at the Hot Gates changed things for the Spartans. "Of the three hundred Spartans dispatched to Thermopylae, there appear to have been three who were in no position to contribute in any substantial way to the struggle against the Mede. Eurytus and Aristodemos were purportedly laid up in Alpenus -- both with diseases of the eye. In the crisis, if Herodotus has the story right, the first of the two armed himself and asked the helot assigned to him to lead him into the fighting; and there, as anticipated, he lost his life. The latter was too feeble to follow his example, and he survived the final battle and eventually made his way back to Lacadaemon. There, however, he was shunned: no one would speak to him or even share fire with him, and behind his back they referred to him as a "trembler." His was, he discovered, a life not worth living, and at the battle of Platea he put an end to that life by charging the Persians in such a fashion as to guarantee that he would be impaled upon their spears. There was also a third Spartan name Pantites, who had been sent away to Thessaly as a messenger and, in consequence, missed the final battle. When he returned to Sparta, he was treated with such contempt that he hanged himself." Spartiates were now on notice that even reasonable excuses for failing to do their part were no excuses at all.

* Beheading as motivation, just not the kind of motivation desired. In the aftermath of the Persian loss at the naval battle at Salamis, "...after ...the Great King had ordered the beheading of some of the Phoenician trierarchs, he had threatened to inflict on the rest the punishment he thought they deserved, and at least some of the ships from Sidon and Tyre had fled ... they... hoisted sails and headed home." Whoops.

* Logistics. Persia didn't do half-measures, and their armies and navies were enormous. We can quibble about numbers, but in a pre-industrial world they were huge, and required tremendous resources to feed, water, and transport. They couldn't tarry for very long in any one spot, and put a great deal of pressure on vassals who had the pleasure of hosting the royal procession. Weather patterns also had a big role to play; sailing in the ancient world was a dicey and seasonal business, and the Persian army in Greece depended at least in part on replenishment by sea.

The flip side of this? In addition to being difficult to provision, we see that the Persian forces were generally too large for their own good. The Greeks time and time again were able to bring them to battle in places that either limited the usefulness of the numbers the Persians had at their disposal, or turned their numbers into a problem.

* NATO much? Discussing Sparta's web of alliances that managed to see them through the wars with Persia: "...keep the Messenians down, the Arcadians close, and the Argives out..."

* Scale. The Persian empire included some 40% of humanity. That's a bonkers number. The idea that the Greek statelets were able to set aside their constant bickering and see off a concerted effort on the part of 4 in 10 humans to absorb them into their polity is remarkable, and was a close run thing at a number of points.

* After the Battle of Platea, Pausanias was taken aback by the splendor of the enemy's quarters. He had the Persian servants make him a meal, and was dumbstruck by the spread. He then asked his own servants to produce a meal, which was comparatively humble. Bringing the Greek commanders in to the tent, he said: "I have assembled you for this purpose - to show you the mindlessness of the Persian leader Mardonius, who, having a mode of living like this, came against us to deprive us of the dreary mode of living that we posess."

[Peter Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta by Paul Rahe

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...

Because of the title, I came to this book expecting to learn more about Sparta. I thought this book would focus on Spartan strategy, concerns, background, etc. In other words, I relied on the title of the book. In fact, I made my decision to purchase on that basis.

In truth, this book is a very excellent, very informative, very accessible book about the history of the Persian Wars, including substantial material of the period prior to the war. We get a critical assessment of the historians of that epoch, and who can be trusted on which issue and why. All in all, it is an excellent resource.

The greatest insight I obtained from the book had to do with Athens. What I think I picked up - overstating for effect - was that prior to the Persian Wars, Athens was one of the many leading states of Greece, but not a leader. Sparta clearly outranked it in military pre-eminence. What launched Athens out of the pack was the discovery of silver and Themosticles's policy of building ships. (Obviously, Athens had had enough clout to invade Ionia, which set up the promised retaliation by Persia.) The additional ships put Athens into a military leader in the Persian Wars, and the civic pride engendered by its victories at Marathon and Salamis was what created the Athenian mystique.

Again, a kind of oversimplified summary.

Nonetheless, it doesn't have a lot to do with Sparta.

So, forewarned is fore-armed. If you are looking for a focus on Sparta, this is not your book. The book that is here is nonetheless terrific and worth your time.

[Philjones62 · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first part of the book actually seemed to be concerned with Sparta. the second part was just a nice narrative on the Persian wars. Most of the times I thought the author mentioned Sparta just so it could vaguely tie in to the title of the book. And by the end, his use of "son of ..." to describe someone gave me the irrits.

[Zac Curtis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a fine retelling of the Persian invasions, but for more than half the book the Spartans were forgotten. They were little more than side characters in the larger struggle for independence against the Achaemenid empire. It is completely understandable to explain the contributions, causes, and aftermath in the wars but I assumed this book was mainly about Sparta. What did the Persian wars mean for Spartan grand strategy? How did this affect their leadership? Would there be a change moving forward to their control of the helots?

Rahe is clearly intelligent and well versed in the history of ancient Greece. Although granular, I enjoyed this summarization of the war, it brought lots of new perspectives and analysis which I hadn't heard of. It just very rarely dealt with the Spartans.

[Ivan Marinov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and well written. However, it only partly concentrates on Spartan strategy, mostly in the first chapters. Readers with knowledge of the Persian wars will find little value in other chapters, especially if discussions of Spartan strategy were expected.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Battles matter. An impressive deep dive into the Greco-Persian wars focused on the Spartan centrality to the Greek defensive effort.

While Rahe notes that more modern historians like to focus on the non-military areas as being the source of major epochal changes, Rahe's basic premise remains that battles matter. So get ready for a lot of battles.

I can't say this was an easy book. It's not. It's geared more towards the academic than casual reader but there's still great value for anyone with a passing interest in classical greek warfighitng or concepts of how disparate city states could manage to defend against and ultimately defeat an empire as massive as the Persians.

Rahe highlights how the singular dedication of the Spartans to militarism was of premier importance to the development of a coherent anti-Persian strategy. There is the obvious irony in a repressive police state like Sparta being the lynchpin in defending Western democratic ideals and Rahe doesn't shy away from commenting on their annual wars against their Helot slaves and other unsavory practices. Rahe doesn't get as moralistic as Victor Davis Hanson, but that's ok as that's not the focus.

Overall, this is a thorough, if occasionally impenetrable, look into classical military strategy.

[Hannah]

Honestly, I was a bit overwhelmed reading this book. I felt under-educated in this area, which made it hard to read because most information was new information to me. There was a steep learning curve. I persevered through the book, because I realized I would never learn more if I quit every time a book was higher than my knowledge. Reading this book felt quite character-building for me, and I won’t lie… I feel proud to have finished this book.

Paul A. Rahe is a professor and scholar surrounding the Spartans. Currently he is a professor at Hillsdale College. He has written books surrounding the Spartan Regime in the past, and wrote this book as the first installment of a trilogy. In an interview with Rahe, he was asked about the meaning behind his title. His response interested me and brought more meaning to some of the smaller details he brought in. The purpose behind grand strategy is the domestic aspect in addition to military tactics. Rahe goes into great detail surrounding the way of life, the cultural factors, and political alliances during this time. He deeply delved into these concepts. If you are interested in learning more about this subject in an easier format, Rahe does a video lecture series which I found informative.

Winston Churchill said, “Battles are the principal milestones in secular history. Modern opinion resents this uninspiring truth… But great battles, won or lost, change the entire course of human events, create new standards of values, new moods, new atmospheres, in armies and in nations, to which all must conform”. “The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta”, unpacks why this war was life-changing for history. As a person who does not have a classical education, or a strong history base, I found myself a little exhausted finishing this book. It was as if I finished a marathon, it was draining. I definitely grew as a learner, and this is my main takeaway. Yes, my knowledge on this subject increased (substantially). But, even more than expanding my knowledge, I felt like I showed myself I can finish a difficult book, such as this. Oh, I also took away that I don’t want to live in the Spartan community.

This isn’t a traditional book review, because I don’t necessarily feel qualified to write one. There are many good reviews on Goodreads, which I would direct you to read. I didn’t do a star rating for this book on Goodreads, for the same reason this isn’t a traditional book review. I believe anyone could pick this book up, but I would recommend this book to people who really enjoy history and the way history books are written.

[Chillstreem · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with other reviewers here - mainly in that we learn almost nothing new on the Spartan posture and the reasoning behind their actions before and during the Persian invasion of Hellas. Apart from a relatively small chapter at the beginning of the book describing the Spartan society, the volume deals mostly with the Hellenic effort as a whole and I got a feeling there was far more inside detailing the lives of various prominent Athenians and tyrants on Aegean islands like Samos, Delos, Lesbos etc., rather than the Spartans themselves. The author devotes orders of magnitude more time to the Peisistratids and Themistocles as opposed to Leonidas, Pausanias, Leotychides, Demaratus, or any other Spartan individual for that matter, with Cleomenes being the sole exception getting any modicum of attention at all.
There are some nice portions on the logistics of the enormous Persian host and the realities of trireme warfare but, again, this has precious little to do with the Spartan aspect of the whole affair.
Don't let the title deceive you, it's a solid (if a bit slow and drawn out) overview of the period, but the Spartan viewpoint is more of an afterthought, rather than the axis around which everything should have revolved.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audiobook. An enjoyable political/military history of Sparta through the Persian Wars that has an overall favorable take. It fell short in addressing the issue of the Helots by failing to bluntly characterize it and, I think, underrating its influence on Sparta’s options.

[Simon Mee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Taken as a whole the grand strategy of classical Lacedaemon was brilliantly designed for the purpose it was intended to serve. It had, however, one grave defect. It presupposed that for all practical purposes, under Sparta’s hegemony, the Peloponnesus was a world unto itself—which, of course, it was . . . at the time that this strategy was first formulated. If, however, there ever came a moment when a power equal to or greater than Lacedaemon appeared—or even threatened to appear—in force at or near the entrance to that great peninsula, the Spartans would have to rethink this strategy and recast it to meet an unanticipated challenge.

The rubber hits the road. The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta set out why the weirdo classical Greek state was what is was, The Persian Challenge shows us how it acted within the constraints of its nature, relying heavily on Herodotus but drawing more widely where possible.

The concept of “Spartan manhood” will always be a cultural tug of war, and the shame of it is that it can obscure how the polity conducted itself through major historical events. Putting aside the six packs and pederasty, Rahe presents us with a state that transferred its Peloponnesian League hegemony into the core of the Hellenic League, which successfully resisted a very dangerous Persian invasion. Rahe’s Sparta is a relatively interventionist power, hardly caught unawares by the rise of the Persian empire, making an impact in the Greek Islands, tidying up affairs within the Peloponnese, and coming to a successful alliance with Athens.

The Persian Challenge presents Persia as a dangerous enemy, capable of multiple expeditionary efforts and highly skilled diplomatic overtures, including pushing Carthage against Syracuse. Some of the descriptors of the motivations of Persia get a bit elevated:

For Achaemenid Persia, the attempt to conquer Hellas was no ordinary war. It was divinely ordained. It was what would later be called a jīhad.

...but while at the outer edge, does not seem totally off base with descriptions of Persia as a highly motivated expansionist empire.

Of course the greater the enemy, the greater the protagonist must be, and so it proves with the non-medizing Greeks, marshalling forces both defensively and offensively, while holding together a coalition of relative equals. While Rahe acknowledges defeat at Thermopylae:

Never in human history has a political community gained as dramatically in prestige by losing a battle as the Spartans did on this particular occasion.

...he places it in the context of a well run combined arms operation as well as overall success in the war. Rahe also understands the emotional tension of the moment at Plataea immediately before the Peloponnesian forces stood up and annihilated their opposition.

Ironically, those that might hold Athens as the real MVP of the Greek side will find plenty of support here – Rahe clearly likes Themistocles and bestows him with strategic vision at a level that would put him amongst the great minds of any era.

The narrative suffers a little for the need for detail and explanations for Rahe’s conclusions, however I do find him to be an interesting writer who’s energy infuses the writing. Rahe is unafraid to make clearly flagged assumptions on what could have happened and dissenting opinions are footnoted. You also get a clearer picture of what each side was and was not capable of, and the thinking behind each step – this is not a book of one damn thing after another. Conversely, it is less analytical than the first book, so it is reliant on you having a good memory, and understanding that you can only do so much with limited information.

So yes, while it is reasonable to caution against the ideal of living like a Spartan, Rahe would like you to credit the city-state for what it did achieve.

[Koit · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is difficult not to appreciate the struggle of the Hellenes against Achaemenid Persia: the sheer might available on one side against a small number of independent polis on the other side. Yet, as we know, in a series of engagements—Marathon, Salamis, and Plataea—the Greeks broke the will of the Persians to fight in Hellas or against the Greeks. Mr Rahe’s investigation promises to explain how Sparta positioned herself in this fight against a giant.

Now, to be fair to the author, he does achieve this aim. However, the vast majority of the book focusses on Athens and her actions. Beyond a relatively short section that describes the way of life in Sparta, the study quickly hones in on the Athenians. I appreciate that this is partially due to the sources that we have available, and also that in the later books (on the Attic wars), the author explains his choice in more depth: essentially, he wanted to build the story of both cities such that the reader would understand how their cooperation developed into antagonism. However, it is still slightly disappointing to see this book be titled an investigation into Sparta when in reality Sparta’s motives form a relatively short (and always a comparative) issue.

On the other hand, the author’s descriptions of Marathon and the other engagements, especially that of Plataea, are very good indeed. Marathon and Salamis are slightly more popular in the public mind, but I found the overview of Plataea especially strong. Further, the author has the good grace of bringing up what other scholars think and how he disagrees (if he does so!)—he also proves to believe more of the word-by-word narration of the ancient authors, especially Herodotus, than the majority of today’s historians as well as explain why he does so. These choices endeared the author’s style to me.

One of the (relatively minor) drawbacks was the tendency to always note every single village the armies may have passed by. These, without handy references, made the progress of the campaigning sides much more difficult to imagine than a simple directional description. This related to my own wish to not spend time poring over maps of the area to clarify the matter further for myself: if I would have wanted to do this, I definitely could have done so.

In the end, a solid overview but the title is a bit misleading: the author focusses as much, if not more, on Athens as he does on Sparta, but the overview is solid in all respects and may even include a few too many details.

This review was originally posted on my blog.

[Ryan Schaller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first book in Professor's Rahe's trilogy on the strategy of Classical Sparta. There is a prequel volume - The Spartan Regime - which is summarized briefly at the beginning of this book.

Rahe is a professor and this is an academic history with copious references and endnotes. When there are multiple sources with disputed accounts, Rahe presents all of the information and then persuasively argues for his interpretation.

I loved this book but it should not be the first book you read about the Persian/Greek wars. While Professor Rahe does include a good deal of background - particular on the Persian side, he does not offer a lot of detail about the portions of the narrative that occur in Athens. I don't have a problem with that. You get the Athenian narrative in essentially every other book written about this war. You should probably come to Rahe's work after you already have that general background.

[Brett Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was looking for something indulge my renewed interest in those damn Spartans, a people outside of time from an ancient world outside of time...and the first chapter certainly gave me what I wanted. How wonderful, then, to discover that the subsequent narrative provided an overarching view of the world of Herodotus' Greco-Persian wars. It looks like Rahe has written another tome devoted to the Spartans, which I'm inclined to give a listen. This particular work, tho, is really about the Hellenic and Persian worlds during the early 6th, late 5th century era generally. While sometimes getting lost in the vagaries of geography/politics/genealogy kept the right balance of forward moving narrative and the former sidelong diversions.

Should be noted that I listened to the audio version as narrated by Bronson Pinchot, whose narration I quite enjoyed.

[Shrike58 · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the whole I was a little more impressed with the author's "The Spartan Regime," as much of this book is really not concerned with Sparta. However, it was probably inevitable that any book dealing with the Persian War is going to be examining the role of Athens at length; particularly once Themistocles enters the narrative. That said, this book does work really well as a narrative of the Persian War, as the contemporary reader is going to receive a more comprehensive understanding of the Persian regime than in years past, and how that regime related to the varied Greek city states.

[Петр Федичев · Rating 5 out of 5]

a lot of fine details adding up on top of a good movie

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad but somewhat dry.

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge by Paul Anthony Rahe is a book I approached with some degree of trepidation. It was given to me for free, and the author was noted to have engaged in some questionable modern day politics. I had wondered if I was getting myself into another Victor Davis Hanson situation, a man who has his moments of brilliance and insight, while being weighted down with a crushing intolerant politics that casts a dubious shroud upon even his most noteworthy of efforts. Still, it was published by Yale, and I felt the urge to give it a try.

I'm glad I did. This book is probably one of the best I've encountered on classical Greece and Sparta. I wish others would follow its example, and I appreciated the careful discussion of the sources, and the attempt to extract a concrete grand strategic aim for the Spartan regime. What is derived from Rahe's work is a NATO like structure built upon a militaristic society that was otherwise in fear of its population. Keeping the Helots down and the Argives out is very reminiscent of keeping Germany down and the Russians out, and its clear this is a deliberate call back. The divide and conquer strategy among their rivals, and the turtle-like defensive arrangement were were explored very capably, and I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on Persia. There's a bit of a tortured reference to Jihad and Crusade, but it wasn't nearly as baseless as I believed upon my first encounter of the phrase. There is definitely some whiffs and hints at the politics of the author, but it is mostly kept in check in favor of a really good piece of scholarship.

If I had to make one note, its that I'm not really sure Grand Strategy applies as a term, since Sparta and the Lacedemonians lack the scale necessary to really make that label justified. I might have bought it if it was ascribed to the Achaemenids, Rome, or China, but the very condensed nature of the diminutive Dorian regime makes me question its efficacy.

Regardless, I was happy to discover this is a series, and I am looking forward to seeing how Rahe's scholarship will work when it makes contact with Thucydides.

94/100

[Rey · Rating 5 out of 5]

In respect to The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge
by Paul Anthony Rahe, The Yale Library of Military History

I felt the book for the most part was outstanding. I agree with a few other readers in regard to the title, but I am happy it dragged me in, and it does have merit. I also love the cover, well done

Professor Rahe, had to lay out a lot of ancient actors to get the flow of the history in place, which had to be a daunting task. Rahe does accomplish this with hundreds of side stories assembled, that as a whole bring it all together, which I learned to really appreciate.

This is a book I would consider reading for a second time, if life were just a tad longer or I just can't resist, as I am already nibbling at the edges once again

Reading the epilogue seems imperative. It might hold in some small part, the answer to the burning question, was this The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta after all

I do question whether I should have begun with another of the professors books first, for a better understanding of the Spartan chronology and way of life, but the broad, overarching story seems to work for me in this instance

It was a privilege reading the book no doubt, thank you Professor, I am spoiled, simply fabulous

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed but readable account of the Greco-Persian Wars. More emphasis placed on the Spartans and their role in the conflict as opposed to the usual Athens-centric viewpoint present in most accounts. Worth reading if you're interested in the time period.

[Elendil · Rating 5 out of 5]

complete review at

https://elendilblog.wordpress.com/


great academic book!! I liked it a lot. The spartan point of view of this episode of history.