Sparta: Rise of a Warrior Nation

by Philip Matyszak

This cultural history of Ancient Sparta chronicles the rise of its legendary military power and offers revealing insight into the people behind the myths.   The Spartans of ancient Greece are typically portrayed as macho noble, laconic, totally fearless, and impervious to pain. And indeed, they often lived up to this image. But life was not as simple as this image suggests. In truth, ancient Sparta was a city of contrasts.   We might admire their physical toughness, but Spartans also systematically abused their children. They gave rights to female citizens that were unmatched in Europe until the modern era, meanwhile subjecting their conquered subject peoples to a murderous reign of terror. Though idealized by the Athenian contemporaries of Socrates, Sparta was almost devoid of intellectual achievement.   In this revealing history of Spartan society, Philip Matyszak chronicles the rise of the city from a Peloponnesian village to the military superpower of Greece. Above all, Matyszak investigates the role of the Spartan hoplite, the archetypal Greek warrior who was feared throughout Greece in his own day and has since become a legend. The reader is shown the man behind the myth; who he was, who he thought he was, and the environment which produced him.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Greece, Ancient History, Military History, Military Fiction

244 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 19, 2017

About the author

Philip Matyszak is a British nonfiction author, primarily of historical works relating to ancient Rome. Matyszak has a doctorate in Roman history from St. John's College, Oxford. In addition to being a professional author, he also teaches ancient history for Madingley Hall Institute of Continuing Education, Cambridge University.

Reviews

[Scott Holstad · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a bitter disappointment for me in a couple of ways, one of which is shared by another book on Sparta that I'm currently reading. I've looked up to and admired Sparta and the Spartans my entire life. The first research paper I ever wrote was on Sparta, and it was in elementary school. My whole life, I've heard about how tough they were as a people, how they were warriors, the infamous story about the youth and the fox, their innovative political and cultural systems, the incredibly famous stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, their leadership and domination of the Greeks, their rivalry with Athens and eventual defeat of Athens, etc.

But this book dashed those fond beliefs and admirations to pieces, and for that, I cannot forgive the author. I'll be the first to admit that he's the expert, he's done the research, written the book. He knows more, and perhaps knows the truth. But the truth hurts, and most of my beliefs and perceptions of Sparta and the Spartans turned out to be bloody well wrong! They were indeed viewed as a warrior people and tough as hell, but I'm not sure why. They were surrounded by rivals and enemies, most of whom I'd never heard of before, and they fought awesome, hard fought, longass wars against some of the nation states, and it took them over a century, I believe, to simply subdue just one of their rivals on their part of the Greek peninsula! Other enemies they tricked, battled hard against, tried to avoid fighting altogether, and because even though they were allegedly "warriors," the men had to get back to the fields for harvest season, they rarely laid seige to cities or peoples, and wanted quick victories so they could get home. They also weren't a sea faring people, while Athens dominated the seas. They played neighbors off one another, getting Athens to fight Thessaly or Thebes or one of the others over a third city state, and while their males trained from a very young age to become warriors, the population of Sparta was so freaking small, they couldn't even field a remotely respectable army (which may account for their decades long struggles against their neighbors, possibly), often putting a mere 7,000 men in the field. Compare that to the universally believed vastly inflated Persian number of at least a million man army, and even up to a three million man army, and it's almost impossible to believe Sparta was capable of dominating ANYONE! In fact, during the first Persian invasion, Sparta didn't even participate because of "religious" rituals they couldn't leave, so Athens had to fight the Persians off. That's a little embarrassing, particularly when you believe Sparta made its reputation off fighting the damn Persians! So when Xerxes decides to go after the Greeks again several decades later, Sparta had taken so much grief for pansying out of fighting them the first time and leaving it up to the rest of the Greeks (which is how it was viewed), that this time, even though they were having the SAME DAMN RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS AND RITUALS, they weren't going to be denied, and gathered the independent Greeks together, and somehow because they were universally viewed as the best and toughest warriors in Greece (which says a lot for the rest of Greece, considering Sparta could barely beat anyone), they were placed in the military leadership position, and one of their two kings (they operated on a two king system), the famous Leonidas, took his famous 300-member honor guard off to hold off the Persians. And even though the battle is famous for the "300" (recall the Hollywoodized movie), they actually had a number of servant-warriors, and even some allies with them, so they had many more warriors than the infamous 300. They had well over 1,000. Nonetheless, they pass they chose to defend was so damn tight, that only about a couple of men could approach at one time, and they built a wall to defend from the top, and also -- this isn't widely known -- the actual battle commander was the Athenian naval commander, because evidently Sparta, Athens, and the rest of the Greeks actually believed the few Spartans and their allies could hold the pass indefinitely, while the Athenian navy actually won the battle against the huge Persian fleet, and when the Spartan religious ceremonies were over a week or so later, they'd send their "huge" army of some 7,000 warriors if they were even needed by that point. Bear in mind the "official" history we rely on, by Herodotus I think (???), so vastly overinflates the size of the Persian army, as to be viewed as almost totally unreliable, stating it was between one and three million men large. Against roughly 1,000 defenders led by the 300 Spartans. It boggles the mind. And when Xerxes sent emissaries to the Spartans requesting they put down their weapons and surrender, Leonidas reportedly made that hugely famous statement (in Greek): "Come and get them!" That, my friends, is the true definition of big, bad balls! And as everyone knows, after just 3-4 days, a Greek traitor who lived in the area went to Xerxes and offered to show him a small trail around the other side of the mountain, thus flanking the Spartans and trapping them from the rear. Becoming one of the most infamous traitors in history. The Spartans did indeed fight very nearly to the last man, while the Athenian navy did indeed rip the Persian navy to shreds, but because Xerxes got his men into Greece because the most famous battle the Spartans ever had, and one of the most famous battles in the history of the world, was LOST by the Spartans (although, yes, treachery played a huge role in that), Athens was sacked entirely, but enough time had been salvaged for the citizens to escape, but you know what? I really don't know how the rest of the Greeks ended up beating and driving back the Persians to ultimately win the war. It wasn't because of Sparta.

So my major complaint resides in the fact that this book (and the other one) totally demolish my lifelong held perceptions of Sparta and the Spartan warriors, because the best I can tell is, the few wars they won were against insignificant adversaries, sometimes through trickery, and sometimes over the course of many decades. So why did they have this reputation of such badasses? They're probably the most overrated bad ass "warriors" in the history of the world! And that saddens me more than you can know, but who did they conquer, what territory did they acquire, how much of Greece did they take, etc.? The answer to all is virtually none. Meanwhile, just a hundred or two hundreds years difference shows Alexander, a semi-Greek, destroying Persia, and becoming probably the greatest king the world has ever know, controlling virtually all of Europe, all of north Africa, the Middle East (Asia Minor), the lower parts of what's now the ex-Soviet Union, all the way through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, leaving virtually only the relatively unknown Chinese as the only moderately civilized people in the world NOT under his control. And he accomplished all of this before he turned 32! Meanwhile, Rome comes along just a few centuries later to form what's often thought to be the greatest empire in history (although not nearly as big as Alexander's) and centuries later, Ghengis Khan conquered China, much of Russia, dominated parts of the Middle East, and spread his territory into eastern and central Europe. And Sparta compares to these truly great leaders and warriors how??? Sparta was "dominant" (if you can even call it that) for maybe 200 years, and even then, only over a very small territory and to a very small degree. So why its huge, gigantic reputation? What the hell did they EVER do to merit it? I'm like a monotheist whose eyes have been opened by science and now the idiocy of my former beliefs are laid out before me, leaving me ashamed and embarrassed.

Finally, my other complaint about this book is it deals almost exclusively with the rise of Sparta through the second Persian war, and then the book just kind of ends, even though Sparta was to play a role in Greek politics, wars, and life for another century or so. It just ends. So it's really just a half book, and that added to my disappointment.

I wanted to give this book one star, but I can't because that wouldn't be fair to the author. It'd just be displaying my biases, and wouldn't realistically have anything to do with the actual writing, research, or disappointing truths I've been forced to endure learning. Nonetheless, I can't give the book more than three stars, because for one thing, the book went through some very long, dry, boring spells, and ultimately because the book is incomplete, even though the title should indicate that it's not about the entire history of Sparta, but merely the rise. It SHOULD be about the entire history of Sparta, and I think the author does the reader a disservice by just leaving the story half told. So, interesting, enlightening book, but not recommended for fans of the "traditional" Spartans, but objective ancient history fans might find it moderately interesting....

[Петър Стойков · Rating 5 out of 5]

Имиджът на спартанците като непобедими войни и на Спарта като стожер на простия живот и моралността, които възпитават тези непобедими войни започва горе долу след смъртта на Леонидас при Термопилае и последвалата гръцка победа над персите при Платея ... и горе долу тогава свършва възходът на Спарта.

Оставяйки настрана историческите легенди и пропаганда (да, пропагандата не е измислена наскоро) натрупали се през вековете, Матишак разказва историята на гръцкия град Спарта (всъщност 4 села) - толкова различен от останалите гръцки полиси и обект на толкова митове и легенди.

Първи започнали да прилагат фалангата като военен метод и първи (и дълго време единствени), които реално тренират строева подготовка с командири, сигнали и т.н. спартанците успяват да завладеят цялата съседна им област Месения - да заграбят земята и поробят населението й.

Месения е няколко пъти по-голяма от Спарта и това позволява на спартанците да живеят без да работят - само от доходите от поробените земи. Така мъжете им са практически първата професионална армия в Гърция, защото не им се налага да работят друго... но в постоянен страх, че робите от Месения ще въстанат.

Как живеят, как воюват, как се женят, как възпитават децата си - всичко това е обект на исторически легенди, но авторът се старае да погледне през тях и да ни даде един що-годе реален образ на Спарта. Образ, който може да не се хареса на много хора, защото разбиването на героическите илюзии може да боли. Само че реалният живот не е фентъзи роман и е добре да помним това, докато четем историческите книги.

[Daniel Hoffman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun narrative of the rise of Sparta. Much of the earlier parts are more speculative, because the sources (for a variety of reasons) just aren't as clear or reliable, but the author is pretty up front about all this so you know what is speculation and what is more historically certain. I did find it more interesting as it moved toward the more well known episodes like Thermopylae.

[Linniegayl · Rating 5 out of 5]

The majority of what I know about ancient Greece relates either to Athens or Greek mythology, with a bit of Minoans and Myceneans thrown into the mix. But Sparta? I know next to nothing about Sparta. This was a nice, easy to understand introduction to Sparta and its relationships to its neighbors (and to the Persians).

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A key thing to realize about this book is the title – this isn’t about all of Sparta’s history, just it’s rise. And it ends, essentially, with the Battle of Platea. That might sound odd, as famously Sparta went on to beat Athens in the Peloponnesian War and be the clear top city in all Greece for a while, but this end point fits in with Matyszak’s overall thesis. He believes that what made Sparta great was its talent for impressive innovation. That way, a not too terribly large city could take over as much land as it did and hold on. Sparta itself never saw itself as innovative – they deliberately harkened back to tradition as much as possible- but Matyszak disagrees. But after the Persian Wars, the city essentially lapsed into self-parody. It gained in power for a while but was down a cultural and sociological dead end.

Sparta was a Dorian city and most of their allies in Messenia were Dorian. But most people in the area were Achaean. The First Messenian War began around 743 BC, going by traditional dating anyway. It began with a surprise Sparta attack on a key town, where they killed all the people. It was a prolonged war, and Messians were demoralized after 20 years of fighting. Sparta won, making Messenians into helots – slaves for Sparta. They did field labor. It’s unclear if it was full helotage from day one or not. (Also: did the war really last 20 years?) Modern archeology puts the end of the war around 710 BC. But it caused a new problem for Sparta: it needed to hang on.

Lycurgus most likely existed (assuming he really did exist) right around now. Did all the rules really come from one man? The main theme of the book is, no. But there may have been a core truth to it. It was around this time they had to start hunkering down to protect what they had. His rules included how often, when, and where a man could sleep with his wife. What clothes their kid could wear, and how a kid should act walking down the street. There is clear evidence of social tension in Sparta around this time. There were many kids born out of wedlock during the war while the men were away. It’s when they set up their only colony (in Sicily). Were people being moved away to alievate social tension? There was apparently an oligaric coup. The old assembly still survived, but it had far less power. Also, Sparta gave soldiers land from the war, so they’d have a stake in it. They did, and they became obsessive about keeping that status quo. There were two kings – with one typically in the field and the other at home. There were five ephors who were checkson kingly power and did much governing (and interpreted Lycurgus’s laws). The jury served for life.

The Messenians rebelled. This led do the 2nd war, by either 685 or 660 BC. Sparta won it, but it hardened attitudes. They did whatever they needed to win, and really wanted to make sure the helots wouldn’t try that again. The Messinians hated and clearly outnumbered the Spartans, though. So subdue them with merciless terror. It’s why Sparta became what it became.

The agoge most likely began around this time. (It’s hard to know too much because Sparta didn’t like to say much to outsiders about their town life and our sources are all from outside Sparta). This was how Sparta trained its boys to become Spartan men. The boys lived together in a big dormitory essentially. After all, their dads were normally away at war anyway. (Fun fact: it influenced Plato’s Republic. Yeah, I can totally see that). Women were allowed to exercise – strong women would make strong babies. Women married ages 18-20, older for Greece. On her wedding night, her hair and clothing was to make her boyish, as the groom spent most of his time with other men. He’d still live in the barracks, sneaking off to see his wife. Many pregnancies weren’t caused by the husband, but Sparta was actually relaxed about all that.

Sickly babies were left to die. By age 7, boys joined the agoge. They were given one cloak per year. They lived in a “herd” They were taught that bullying, intimidation, and abuse were fine. Girls were encouraged to mock weak performers. Boys were to call all adult males “father.” They could steal food, but couldn’t get caught. There’s a famous story of a boy who stole a fox, had it under his garment, and acted naturally when talking to an elder. He made no sign of having the stolen fox – even though the fox was gnawing into his entrails – killing the boy. That (likely fictional) story became an emblem of how a Spartan should act. Modern scholars are skeptical of how far it all went, but something was going on.

Bravery was valued, but you weren’t to be a mindless robot. Personal initiative was prized. Age 12: you were handled to an older youth who served as father/lover to the boy. (It’s why his bride would look boyish on his wedding – it’s how they saw sex). The most promising joined the Krypteia. This was the “secret ones” – the ones who guarded them against the helots. They were scouts who terrorized the slaves. They’d kill leading ones just because they were leading ones. When the boys came of age, they’d join a communal mass hall based on their military unit. Then get a wife. Their battle line was strong and well-drilled.

They took over much of the southern Peloponnesia by 630 BC. They allowed nominal independence over some towns that agreed to work with them. They tried to take over one town and failed – so instead came to terms where that other town (Tagea) joined a new thing: the Peloponnesian League. This was another example of Spartan flexibility that’s the author’s main point.

They had a king named Cleomenes I who ruled for a while. Under him, Sparta intervened in Athens in 510 BC when the Oracle of Delphi endorsed it. They were good in battle and people expected to lose to Sparta. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The style of battle – the battle line they used- meant that if your line broke, your side was in big trouble. Also, the first to run would be the ones most likely to survive. Sparta was the best drilled and had the solidest ethos – so weren’t likely to flee. So the other side would flee partially out of a sense Sparta couldn’t be beat. In Sparta, warrior was the only job. Helots did the rest. So Spartans could keep training. But they didn’t like to go far – danger of helot revolt. We’re told some helots came with, but it’s not clear if its men or women/kids to do labor. If the latter, they could also be hostages to ensure no rebellions.

The Persian Wars come. Athens asks Sparta for help before Marathon, and the author has an interesting theory about Sparta’s response. It isn’t just that they had to wait to end their religious ritual. They also had some conniving going on. If Athens beat the Persians in battle, they’d be so banged up that Sparta would be stronger, and exert power over them. Mabye even get Athens to change their damn democratic government. If Athens lost, they could at least soften up Persia some. Sparta felt obligated to get involved – they’d look weak otherwise. But waiting for Athens to fight Persia on their own would be in Sparta’s best interest. But Sparta didn’t expect what happened: Athens won without much loss. Now Sparta just plain looked lame and unimportant.

So they made up for it at Thermopylae, which the author calls their finest hour. Fun fact: Leonidas wasn’t in command – but the commander was in the fleet, which shows where people thought the importance was. The passage was 50 feet wide at the mouth, but narrowed to an ox-cart in it. There were maybe 7,000 there in all, but the core was the 300 Spartans who stayed all the way. They gained honor and glory in their deaths.

Athens upstaged Sparta again at Salamis. As glorious as Thermopylae was, it was still a loss. So Sparta won at Platea.

In concluding, he oddly says that Sparta’s military record was only mixed prior to the Persian Wars. (Hey – your own text contradicts that). He notes that they kept fighting one nearby town (Argos) and never had a knock out win. But they’d innovated in armor, tactics, their alliances, their social structure, their treatment of women. They saw themselves as unchanging, but were actually quite revolutionary. But when they ceased changing they began to wither.

Overall a good book, and there’s something to his thesis. But Sparta did actually gain in power after his narrative ends, so it’s not too tidy in that regard. (Actually, if you want you can argue Sparta’s willingness to ally with Persia was a sign of its ability to innovate).

[Parker C. Haley · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have never truly studied the Spartans then this is a perfect place to start. For myself, it was a perfect introduction to Sparta and the history revolving around the time period of the strong, relentless, and feared Spartan army.

With that being said, a lot of stuff beyond the Spartan army itself is discussed as well. Laconia, Persian Empire, Messenia, Athens, etc. However, these all are mentioned in relation to Sparta to give you a better understanding of the outlook on/of the Spartans.

In short, this book is a great start to begin learning of Sparta’s beginning — to the climax of its army — and a brief overview of the end of Spartan dominance.

[sable · Rating 4 out of 5]

did you know sparta boys were given a puppy to raise and kill as part of their upbringing?

[Xavier Ruiz Trullols · Rating 3 out of 5]

Matyszak’s book is a concise and informative overview of one of the most mythologized societies in ancient history. While the book delivers a solid introduction to the early development and unique military culture of Sparta, I found it somewhat dry in tone, and, more importantly, limited in scope. The writing is clear and well-researched, but it lacks the narrative energy that could bring such a fascinating subject to life.

What stood out to me was the exploration of how Sparta came to define itself as a warrior society, including its harsh social structures, training systems, and political organization. For readers unfamiliar with Sparta, this is a helpful entry point. However, as someone who was hoping to dive deeper into the city's major historical role, I was disappointed that the book doesn’t go far enough. It barely touches on the Peloponnesian War, offers very little on Sparta’s clashes with Thebes, and skips over significant episodes like the Macedonian domination, the impact of Alexander’s empire, and eventually, Roman conquest.

In short, it’s a decent read if you're looking for a basic understanding of early Spartan society and how it rose to prominence. But if you're hoping to understand Sparta’s key role in the wider narrative of Greek history, this book falls short. There’s so much more to Sparta’s story that’s left untold.

[Gilda Felt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly engaging, Matayszak gives us a portrait of the Spartans as I’ve never read before. Not at all dry, in fact often amusing, the book follows the town as it grows, expanding out as it conquers its neighbors. Yet, always remaining little more than a town.

I’m not sure if I’d agree that the Spartans lived up to their image. They’re often portrayed as biting off more than they can chew. And because of their dual leader system, one could overrule the other, causing no end of problems, especially when they were trying to take over another city.

But then came the Persian invasions. Any missteps would be forgotten with the Persians’ third attempt to conquer Greece with the Spartans’ last stand at Thermopylae.

I thought the book bogged down a bit when it came to the chapter describing what the Spartan soldier wore, his equipment, and how the army was set up. Not really my field of interest. But mostly I found the book interesting, and well worth reading. I’m looking forward to reading the companion book detailing Sparta’s fall.

Speaking of companion books, Robert Market’s The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece was extremely handy.

[Tacitus · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got this through Amazon Prime Reading, and I was happy that I did. Matyszak writes in a conversational, plain English style, with much insight into this often complex topic. He explains the somewhat murky origins of Spartan society simply to a newcomer, sometimes even with a sense of humor (if not always true wit). In any case, his prose itself was fluid and a joy to read.

I had only a passing interest in Ancient Greece until recently (knowing it only in broad strokes), and so this was a perfect opener to the topic and certainly improved my own understanding. The book is not footnoted, but there are plenty of ancient sources cited in the text itself to lend it credibility and prove well enough to me that Matyszak has done his homework.

The book ends at the end of the Persian Wars, which Matyszak argues was Sparta’s peak,so the Peloponnesian Wars are left out. There are some Kindle translation errors, but nothing major. All in all, the book is a wonderful gateway to further reading and exploration, and it was just what I needed right now.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is both a generally good overview of Sparta (from ~prehistory up to the early classical period, ending with Platea) and an articulation of a specific thesis about Sparta: that they were unremarkable in the beginning, were good at innovating for a while, which brought them success, and they marketed that success widely, but then became sclerotic and less relevant over time.

If you're relatively new to Greek antiquity and classical civilization, this is a great (if narrow) introduction. If you know a bit more (like the) the author's thesis about Sparta is interesting, but I don't know enough to fully evaluate it vs alternatives. Still, it's very well presented, and the two ways of reading this book make it very interesting to a broad range of people.

[Gilbert Stack · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Spartans are one of the most fascinating of ancient peoples. Their transformation of their society into a “perfect” military state was so extreme that it intrigues people even today. And yet this relatively small state created a military machine which held off the Persian Empire at Thermopylae and dominated much of Greece in its struggle with Athens during the decades-long Peloponnesian War. This book looks at Sparta through the crisis that motivated its militaristic transformation through Thermopylae. It is definitely interesting, but I think it would have been better if it continued the history another few hundred years, but I guess that’s what the next volume is for.

[Brian Donald William Norman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a superb brief history told with a smooth, fast paced style. The author delves into an entire history of Sparta as much as is possible with so few clues regarding its ancient days. He writes in great detail about the rise of Sparta and the reasons, then Sparta at it's zenith and fiinally, kind of brushes over the lost Spartan culture. I have live in Lacedeemon which is now a quiet agricultural province in the southern Greece. There is virtually nothing left of the ancient Spartans. They were not a culture of builders but one of farmers and fighters. I highly recomment this book!

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are a lot of reasons I liked this book and a lot I didn't. The comparison of the foundation myths to the archaeological record, was very well done, as were most historical and cultural issues. The biggest problem was the language of the prose which used a lot of words that are no longer in common usage and, at times, seemed to be phrased as if Yoda from Star Wars was speaking (In opinion mine). I was also disappointed that the history ended with the conclusion of the Persian Wars. I expected a history of Sparta to include the Peloponnesian wars that followed.

[Brendan Huggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very informative and easy to read

Very easy read. The language is typically in layman's terms. Book moves quickly, but, in my opion, thoroughly through the books content. I enjoyed it.

Previous books I've read on say the Peloponnesian wars were significantly more difficult to get through due to the language being more academic and dry in nature.

[LeAnne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful for those of us who know only a little about Sparta

I am one of those. All the battle detail was not of interest to me. For scholars, it might be. It is an easy read though. I'll be reading the follow-up book about Spartans fall.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely note the subtitle (which I did not do - totally my fault): this is a history of early Sparta, up to the end of the war with Persia. Mostly political and military history, less social history than I usually go for. It was well written and easily listened to for what it was!

[Chris Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really wanted to learn more about the Spartans themselves & their culture. Some of that but much of it was just a chronological history of things before Sparta became a power, during & after. I really wanted about a 1/4 of the book.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entertaining and insightful

A solid introduction and overview of the makings of Sparta as we know it, up untill Thermopylae and the defeat of the persians. Well written and entertaining to the non-historian reader.

[Atanas Vasilev · Rating 5 out of 5]

Много интересен разказ за трансформацията на Спарта от малък полис до доминираща сила в Древна Гърция. Знаех за някои детайли от легендите, но книгата представлява цялостен поглед върху предпоставките, довели до създаването на практически първата позната в света професионална армия.

[Nicholas Finch · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, especially for it’s witty sense of humor, and modern turn of phrase in the telling of a very old story.

Nice work.

Highly recommended.

[M · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice introduction to the great history of Sparta. I would’ve liked more details but it gave a good overview and is a quick read/listen (I listened to the audiobook).

[Terry Comer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good overview of how Sparta's reputation came to be.

[Charles Bane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fanulous

A flowing narrative, scrupulous references and notes and deep historical sense of broad Mediterranean history. This is as good as it gets.

[G. Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good introduction indeed, although I would have welcomed more on the women in Spartan society, very sparse mentions only, but an interesting read

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good for those that want an introduction to Ancient Sparta. Nothing new, just well done, albeit brief.

[Charlie R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another good option for getting your feet wet with Sparta. Author has a very readable style

[Martin Klekner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great basic summary, good read!

[Nick H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lot of good info and easy to keep track of dates/events. Narration by Cooper is very good. [AUDIBLE]

色んないい情報、あと読みやすい。ナレーションがよかった

[Johnny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good, not very informative to me but probably great for the average reader.