Sparta's First Attic War: The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta, 478-446 B.C.

by Paul Anthony Rahe

A companion volume to The Spartan Regime and The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta that explores the collapse of the Spartan‑Athenian alliance
 
During the Persian Wars, Sparta and Athens worked in tandem to defeat what was, in terms of relative resources and power, the greatest empire in human history. For the decade and a half that followed, they continued their collaboration until a rift opened and an intense, strategic rivalry began. In a continuation of his series on ancient Sparta, noted historian Paul Rahe examines the grounds for their alliance, the reasons for its eventual collapse, and the first stage in an enduring conflict that would wreak havoc on Greece for six decades. Throughout, Rahe argues that the alliance between Sparta and Athens and their eventual rivalry were extensions of their domestic policy and that the grand strategy each articulated in the wake of the Persian Wars and the conflict that arose in due course grew out of the opposed material interests and moral imperatives inherent in their different regimes.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, War, Politics, Ancient History, Greece, Audiobook

328 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 2019

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

[Ben Watson · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a doozy. This book took me 2 years to finish and I am not a fan.

Only reason I didn’t give it one star is that despite me hating the author and writing style, I don’t imagine there’s a better book out there that covers this material in as much depth. So if you’re looking for a play by play deep dive of everything that happened in and around Greece from like 470-440 BC this is the book for you.



The author clearly lives and breathes Greek history and writes like he expects everyone else to have his depth of knowledge and background. It is like a masters class textbook on the first attic war with every page including like 5-10 different names of people or places you’ve never heard of. Additionally the author writes like an academic pompous ass, he uses complex words and convoluted sentence structures constantly. It’s hard to put into words but if you read this youd also get the impression that this guy is the worst.

The book is supposed to cover the “grand strategy” of classical Sparta but misses the mark entirely. It is hyper Departed and granular and truthfully focuses 80% of the writing on Athens and not Sparta. You can’t tell the history of one without the other but I was disappointed with the authors framing.

This is also a frustrating read since the author tries to write this as a definitive history but the source material is extremely sparse and unreliable which he admits to. It’s not his fault but it’s just frustrating that much of motivation and timeline described in the book isn’t definitive.

This book has a 30 page index and 30 pages of 9 point font notes at the end,to give you an idea of the depth and detail.

Paul A. Rahe is the WOAT.

[Simon Mee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every polity seeks to preserve itself, to be sure; and in this crucial sense all polities really are akin. But there are also, I argue, moral imperatives peculiar to particular regimes; and, if one’s aim is to understand, these cannot be dismissed and ostentatiously swept aside or simply ignored on specious “methodological” grounds. Indeed, if one abstracts entirely from regime imperatives—if one treats Sparta, Persia, Corinth, Argos, and Athens simply as “state actors,” equivalent and interchangeable, in the manner advocated by the proponents of Realpolitik—one will miss much of what is going on.

Sparta’s First Attic War continues to trace late archaic and Classical Sparta’s interactions both within and without the bottom of the Balkan Peninsula. This period lacks battles such as Thermopylae. Sparta’s power also wavered due to war and natural disaster. Yet it held it together, and that is an interesting story in itself.

Athenian Hubris, Spartan Nemesis

Marathon, Salamis, Mycale, Eurymedon, and Cypriot Salamis—the list of her victories over the greatest empire known to man is long. But triumphalism can all too easily become an obstacle to a sober appreciation of the realities of power.

Sparta’s First Attic War covers the careers of the real A-listers of Athenian politics: Themistocles, Aristeides, Cimon, and Pericles. These leaders and a fair number of others dramatically extended Athenian power, taking the war to Persia as far afield as Cyprus and Egypt. 478BC-446BC covers an exceptional period of Athenian hubris, eventually lapping the shores with the disastrous Sici… …no, wait, Egyptian expedition (they somehow managed to do the same thing twice, within half a century of each other). It is a shame that Thucydides was slightly too young to record the period in detail but what we do have, including several theatrical pieces, really showcase the Athenian golden age.

…but this is a book about Sparta… …right? And the short answer is yes, valid criticism. Part of the issue is the lack of sources covering Spartan internal politics. Mostly what we know about at least two of their kings and one of their regents was that they got fined for taking bribes or other similar misdemeanours. Sparta was also simply not as active abroad during this period. There is a limit on what can be described.

…but, I do like how Rahe works within the constraints. How he connects Athenian delusions of grandeur with the eventual revival of Spartan power:

They had met the Athenian challenge—as, a few decades previously, they had also met the Persian challenge—and once again, with bravery, cunning, and grace, they had driven off the challenger.

…because what did happen with Sparta does interact in interesting ways with Athenian policy. Badly hurt by allied rebellion, Argive hostility, an earthquake, helot revolt, and more allied rebellion, Sparta struggled through the period with limited Athenian aid and occasional Athenian intervention against it. But it came back by working within the constraints set out by Rahe’s book… …and there it is, forcing the 30 Year Peace on Athens on relatively powerful terms.

So Sparta’s First Attic War serves (pretty explicitly as you can see from the quote) as a moral tale. Don’t count the dour players out. They may have pretty significant weaknesses but, with their interlocking layers of alliances, they can truly be a threat. Obviously Athenian actions in other theatres didn’t help itself, but this book is about Sparta, and how it got itself back into the game of great powers. It is a fascinating narrative in that sense.

More than ‘One Damn Thing After Another

As we have already had occasion to observe, they had defended their stronghold deep in the Peloponnesus, they had reasserted their hegemony in south-central and southwest Arcadia, they had repeatedly defeated the Tegeans, they had defended the Mantineians, and step by careful step they had recovered control in Messenia while containing and ultimately taming the Argives and then drawing Tegea back into their alliance. Finally, at a moment when the Athenians, supposing themselves triumphant, jubilantly lorded it over most of Hellas, the Spartans seized an opportunity that with their encouragement presented itself; and they pounced, turning everything suddenly upside-down and confronting their opponents unexpectedly with the likelihood that they would be dealt a crippling strategic defeat.

Is this a book on grand strategy, or just a story? Well, I would first note that that Rahe’s first book in the series details what Sparta’s position was and how it sought to maintain it. It needed to be militarised to maintain its conquests, but also needed alliances, particularly in the Peloponnese after it ran into the limits of its expansion. It also became a bit of a liberator more widely when it threw down a number of tyrants.

Sparta’s First Attic War is an explanation of how Sparta applied its grand strategy in the face of changing conditions. Considering the diplomatic and literal earthquakes during that period, Rahe presents Spartan policy as remarkably consistent. It moved strongly and relatively quickly against its most dangerous enemies, being the helots and those city states close to home, such as Tegea. With more distant threats, it acted slowly, or even avoided them, leaving it to Athens to carry the weight. It avoided outright conquest, such as when it reorganised affairs in Boeotia (I will be interested to see Rahe’s narrative on the early fourth century in that regard).

It is possible to read Sparta’s First Attic War as a simple narrative history but I did find a lot of detail in Rahe’s explanations. Perhaps he could have added more references to “grand strategy” but I am personally quite relaxed about it. He takes a lot of time to explain the context for the decisions made in the moment, explanations with clear grand strategic implications.

As a final comment The First Attic War is relatively heavy going in that Rahe is generally not indulging in putting you into the eyes of a hoplite, or a rower, or a stateman. But he does synthesise the various sources in ways that keeps the narrative clear (while noting disputes in the footnotes). You are not going to race through it, but I consider it impressive with its insights and true lightbulb moments.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

The middle act where it all falls apart. A strong, academically minded military history of classical Sparta that is a little less grand or strategic than promised.

Rahe's second volume in his trilogy looks at the strategic decisions and motivations of the Spartan state following the defeat of Xerxes' Persian armies at Platea. That victory for Sparta and Athens quickly led to the city-states realizing that maybe they weren't meant to be the bestest of friends proving (or establishing, given the timeframe) the adage that states have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. And woe betide to all the lesser city states that ally with Athens or Sparta (or switch) during this time as those alliances and interests are ever shifting.

Rahe does a fine job of explaining Sparta's general position as a fairly self-sustaining conservative state, not prone to expansion given the constant fear the Spartans had of revolt from their slave/serf helot class. Meanwhile, Athens, being a naval power, necessarily had to be more willing to expand and seek out new opportunities.

Beyond this, though, this isn't a book for the lay reader. I find the era interesting with a slightly above average knowledge base, but I was quickly overwhelmed by the granular nature of Rahe's approach. Frequently the "grand" Strategy of Sparta seems to be far less than advertised and it's easy to lose the forest for the trees as Sparta and Athens seemingly lurch from one minor conflict to the next (all the while the Persian threat remains). The effect is that things begin to look far less "grand" and even less "strategic." Nevertheless, it's a worthwhile and useful book but of necessarily limited appeal/utility.

[Koit · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, a strong continuation of the first book, ‘The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge’ where the author continues the story by following through the next thirty years. This time sees Sparta brought low by the forces of nature and rebellion and Athens’ might destroyed in follies almost to a man. As such, it’s not a one-to-govern-the-other, but rather the story of intricately shifting balances of power.

There are some stylistic choices that I don’t like: the author frequently opts for “son of Y” instead of going for “X”; this is clearly intended to make sure that “X” isn’t repeated enough, but it complicates an already colourful cast of characters much more. I also—though I can see why this was done—slightly disapprove of the long introduction and conclusion, though the conclusion is much shorter than the introduction. The introduction will feel very similar if one has read the previous (or the next, both of which I accidentally started before this one) volume in the series, because the author repeats his essential ideas there. This is not bad per se, and it does mean that an interested party can start with this book and not worry about the content of ‘The Persian Challenge’.

Regarding the content itself, I find that the author’s conclusions are generally realistic: and where these are not, he tries to emphasise when he departs from the consensus of historians. One of the benefits of this approach is that normally the reader also learns how many of the primary sources describe certain events, and in many cases Mr Rahe tries to explain why this was done by A and not by B—unless, in the odd case, all three of the major historians who covered the period (and have survived) also described the event.

For students of power, the lesson immediately following the earthquake at Sparta will prove the most interesting. That even in those circumstances, training and determination allowed the Spartiates to withstand any effort the helots could make, though with support from allies, speaks to the value of being prepared (at least in the ancient world)—though also the presence of mind of Archidamus II, even if this should be treated as apocryphal, must be noted.

In contrast, Athens’ power in this time is generally compared to her position in the Delian League and in relation to the conflict against the Achaemenids. This makes the expeditions into Egypt an interesting case study, especially in relation to the scale of losses Athens suffered there. Yet, she was able to recover to defeat the Achaemenids at Salamis (the author takes careful note to always emphasise “Cypriot Salamis” for which a non-European reader can be thankful). After this, however, Sparta’s resurgent power allowed for the defeat of Athens in the field and only negotiations saved Pericles from suffering the fate of Tolmides.

The author’s treatment of this entire period is a very good introduction into 5th century BCE Greece, and as such I can recommend it. I decided for something else to go through after this, but I am planning to continue with the book covering the Second Peloponnesian War soon.

This review was originally posted on my blog.

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sparta's First Attic War: The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta, 478-446 BC by Paul Anthony Rahe is a bit of a step down from the first book in this series. It is hard not to notice that The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta appears has diminished in focus just as its pride of place has diminished on the cover. The book starts with a few notes, some of which seemed as though they were designed to redress my earlier criticisms, such as Rahe's use of the term "Grand Strategy." I should say that the book is a wonderful investigation into the first confrontation between Athens and Sparta, but I have several misgivings. First: the author is far more speculative in this book. His judgments, while usually agreeable, have a habit of building on each other - and as a result, the end picture may end up looking rather foreign to what it may actually have been. Second, Rahe's a bit too harsh on some of his sources, and I cannot help but feel like this was done in order to force a certain amount of support for his more speculative points.

The third and last issue is the most damning. While I learned a lot from this book, it felt as though it really shouldn't have been a book. A decent amount of it appears to be a retelling of the Persian Challenge, and I am anticipating at least one or two chapters of it making an appearance in The Second Attic War. As a result, an already comparatively diminutive book comes across as an attempt to extract a higher number of books in his series, than it feeling entirely useful as a stand alone volume. I would have preferred it if the first and third books were a little longer, because on its own I can't help but get the feeling like I am reading an extended footnote. The speculation, therefore, seems as padding, or academic justification, to carry this forward.

That's not to say its bad. Far from it. Its just less than the first volume, which I thought was a surprise hit that came entirely out of left field for me. If anything this book contains information that I'm much less familiar with than what was covered in the first volume. It just feels too stretched for what it is.

88/100

---

Upon rereading the book, I agree with most of what I said here. I will say that my third complaint is a bit too harsh. This book did deserve to be its own independent work, even if it does not compare as well as it might have with the first book. So, updated score:

90/100.

Now off to the third.

[Joseph]

Woo ah, don’t start this without a map beside you. But who am I kidding, this is a history of war between two poles of Greek society before Alexander.
But really, I read this because it’s a fascinating time in Persia. The Achaemenid doesn’t get as much love as I wish it did. It was only the largest empire by capita per world population. The young Macedonian made himself Magus by conquering it without even managing to make across it and back home.
But don’t worry, half a dozen mediocre tales from Octavian to Nero will manage to come out next year, plague year be damned.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

What tax money can buy: an academic paper pusher doing a rehash of old and unreliable documentation about an event that has a clear connection with him receiving a bigger pension plan, again, from the taxes.

[Петр Федичев · Rating 3 out of 5]

good stuff inside, not the best way to present the stuff though

[Rey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sparta's First Attic War: The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta, 478–446 B.C. (Yale Library of Military History)

In my humble opinion, Paul Rahe cannot be outdone when it comes to the history of Ancient Sparta. I have had the great pleasure of reading three of his books, The Spartan Regime, The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta and now this wonderful book.
I own the whole set of five, and I will read them as if they are hidden gems waiting to be opened. They are a source of great joy for me as they are laid out so well, you can't help but feel as if you are witnessing history in the first person.

Paul Rahe has a sixth book in the series coming out later in the year, which totally took me by surprise, it is a true honor to read history as he lays it out, 100% captivating.

One thing that stands out about this book, as it did in his second in the series, is the generous amount of maps he provides the reader, laid out within the storylines, it is simply unbelievable how helpful that is.

Paul Rahe is an American icon of Spartan knowledge, you simply cannot go wrong reading these books, I highly recommend them for all readers. Rahe opens his book with high effect. You are drawn in almost immediately and just wait with anticipation for the next page, the next chapter and so forth, simply outstanding.


Thank you professor