What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bronze Lie: Shattering the Myth of Spartan Warrior Supremacy
The story of the Spartans is one of the best known in history, from their rigorous training to their dramatic feats of arms--but is that portrait of Spartan supremacy true? Renowned novelist and popular historian Myke Cole goes back to the original sources to set the record straight.
The Spartan hoplite enjoys unquestioned currency as history's greatest fighting man. Raised from the age of seven in the agoge, a military academy legendary for its harshness, Spartan men were brought up to value loyalty to the polis (the city-state) above all else, and to prize obedience to orders higher than their own lives. The last stand at Thermopylae made the Spartans legends in their own time, famous for their brevity, ability to endure hardship, control their emotions, and to never surrender--even in the face of impossible odds, even when it meant their certain deaths.
But was this reputation earned? Or was it simply the success of a propaganda machine that began turning at Thermopylae in 480 BC? Examining the historical record, both literary and material, paints a very different picture of Spartan arms--a society dedicated to militarism not in service to Greek unity or to the Spartan state itself, but as a desperate measure intended to keep its massive population of helots (a near-slave underclass) in line, forcing them to perform the mundane work of farming, cleaning, building and crafting to permit the dandified Spartan citizens (spartiatai) the time they needed to focus on their military training.
Covering Sparta's full classical history, The Bronze Lie examines the myth of Spartan warrior supremacy against the historical record, delving into the minutiae of Spartan warfare from arms and armor to tactics and strategy. With a special focus on previously under-publicized Spartan reverses that have been left largely unexamined, it looks at the major battles as well as re-examining major Spartan “victories”. Most importantly, it re-examines Thermopylae itself, a propaganda victory utterly out of proportion to its actual impact--a defeat that wasn't even accomplished by 300 Spartans, but rather by thousands of allied Greeks, all for the net effect of barely slowing a Persian advance that went on to roam Greece unchecked and destroy Athens itself.
The Spartan hoplite enjoys unquestioned currency as history's greatest fighting man. Raised from the age of seven in the agoge, a military academy legendary for its harshness, Spartan men were brought up to value loyalty to the polis (the city-state) above all else, and to prize obedience to orders higher than their own lives. The last stand at Thermopylae made the Spartans legends in their own time, famous for their brevity, ability to endure hardship, control their emotions, and to never surrender--even in the face of impossible odds, even when it meant their certain deaths.
But was this reputation earned? Or was it simply the success of a propaganda machine that began turning at Thermopylae in 480 BC? Examining the historical record, both literary and material, paints a very different picture of Spartan arms--a society dedicated to militarism not in service to Greek unity or to the Spartan state itself, but as a desperate measure intended to keep its massive population of helots (a near-slave underclass) in line, forcing them to perform the mundane work of farming, cleaning, building and crafting to permit the dandified Spartan citizens (spartiatai) the time they needed to focus on their military training.
Covering Sparta's full classical history, The Bronze Lie examines the myth of Spartan warrior supremacy against the historical record, delving into the minutiae of Spartan warfare from arms and armor to tactics and strategy. With a special focus on previously under-publicized Spartan reverses that have been left largely unexamined, it looks at the major battles as well as re-examining major Spartan “victories”. Most importantly, it re-examines Thermopylae itself, a propaganda victory utterly out of proportion to its actual impact--a defeat that wasn't even accomplished by 300 Spartans, but rather by thousands of allied Greeks, all for the net effect of barely slowing a Persian advance that went on to roam Greece unchecked and destroy Athens itself.
320 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 23, 2021
57 people are currently reading
700 people want to read
About the author
Myke Cole
26 books1,737 followersAs a security contractor, government civilian and military officer, Myke Cole’s career has run the gamut from Counterterrorism to Cyber Warfare to Federal Law Enforcement. He’s done three tours in Iraq and was recalled to serve during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. After hunting terrorists and criminals in real life, he kept up the job on TV, first tracking fugitives on CBS’ 2017 show Hunted, and UFOs on Discovery Channel’s 2019 show Contact.
All that conflict can wear a guy out. Thank goodness for fantasy novels, comic books, late night games of Dungeons and Dragons and lots of angst fueled writing.
All that conflict can wear a guy out. Thank goodness for fantasy novels, comic books, late night games of Dungeons and Dragons and lots of angst fueled writing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
October 4, 2021
I will note for the record that I have known Myke Cole since taking History of the Roman Empire together in college back in 1991.
I would say that relationship has no bearing on this review, but that wouldn’t be entirely true. I saw firsthand as Myke taught himself to read ancient Greek so he could study primary sources for this book. Received pictures from his trips to Greece, tromping around ancient battlefields looking for clues. Watched how he had his research fact checked and peer reviewed. Heard the passion in his voice as he spoke about the project for years as he researched.
The result is a colossal achievement—a retelling of several ancient battles in a modern, accessible voice and a definitive scorecard of Spartan wins and losses based on primary sources showing that history’s most lauded warriors were… average. That they had great victories and crushing losses. That they could be weak and flawed and fallible just like everyone else. It does no dishonor to show them as they really were, and perhaps learn something from it.
I would say that relationship has no bearing on this review, but that wouldn’t be entirely true. I saw firsthand as Myke taught himself to read ancient Greek so he could study primary sources for this book. Received pictures from his trips to Greece, tromping around ancient battlefields looking for clues. Watched how he had his research fact checked and peer reviewed. Heard the passion in his voice as he spoke about the project for years as he researched.
The result is a colossal achievement—a retelling of several ancient battles in a modern, accessible voice and a definitive scorecard of Spartan wins and losses based on primary sources showing that history’s most lauded warriors were… average. That they had great victories and crushing losses. That they could be weak and flawed and fallible just like everyone else. It does no dishonor to show them as they really were, and perhaps learn something from it.
January 19, 2024
Remember this movie?
Yeeeeeah not so much.
While we are on the one hand blessed to still have such a wealth of written material about Classical Greece (approx. 6th-4th centuries BC) the reality is that a lot of it was compiled and written centuries after the fact during Roman times, often relying on copies of copies of original works lost to us. To his credit the author fully recognizes this, but in so doing kind of undermines his own purpose to "conclusively" prove or disprove anything about the Warrior Society of Spartan Peers that has so captured the imagination, for good and for ill, down the intervening centuries.
This is a book with a clear, repetitive mission, and if the battle write ups and chapters themselves weren't repetitive enough the first run through just wait until the conclusion when they are recapped one by one by topic. It's stylistic choices like this that keeps me from unequivocally endorsing the work, which is a shame as I was a big admirer of Legion versus Phalanx.
BTW, lest I be accused of underrating this book on account of being a laconophile ("Sparta Lover") myself I freely admit I never had much time for the lunkheads, particularly as they were so wantonly cruel to their hereditary underclass of helots and also the inspiration for any number of twisted eugenicists up to and including Hitler himself. But I've been spoiled in having these views pretty much my whole life, certainly since before even the graphic novel 300 was even published, and not once have I been affiliated with a town, club, or sporting team called "Spartans", so I don't have much call to cling to any myth or half-truth about who these guys really were.
Ancient battles were clothing optional affairs, right?
Yeeeeeah not so much.
While we are on the one hand blessed to still have such a wealth of written material about Classical Greece (approx. 6th-4th centuries BC) the reality is that a lot of it was compiled and written centuries after the fact during Roman times, often relying on copies of copies of original works lost to us. To his credit the author fully recognizes this, but in so doing kind of undermines his own purpose to "conclusively" prove or disprove anything about the Warrior Society of Spartan Peers that has so captured the imagination, for good and for ill, down the intervening centuries.
This is a book with a clear, repetitive mission, and if the battle write ups and chapters themselves weren't repetitive enough the first run through just wait until the conclusion when they are recapped one by one by topic. It's stylistic choices like this that keeps me from unequivocally endorsing the work, which is a shame as I was a big admirer of Legion versus Phalanx.
BTW, lest I be accused of underrating this book on account of being a laconophile ("Sparta Lover") myself I freely admit I never had much time for the lunkheads, particularly as they were so wantonly cruel to their hereditary underclass of helots and also the inspiration for any number of twisted eugenicists up to and including Hitler himself. But I've been spoiled in having these views pretty much my whole life, certainly since before even the graphic novel 300 was even published, and not once have I been affiliated with a town, club, or sporting team called "Spartans", so I don't have much call to cling to any myth or half-truth about who these guys really were.
Ancient battles were clothing optional affairs, right?
September 16, 2021
Myke Cole has provided his readers with an interesting product.
This is not the work of a serious professional historian. Myke is upfront about this, saying, "My only qualification is that I really, really, like this stuff." He desires to reach a popular audience, informing us, "writing Legion Versus Phalanx cemented my belief that it's possible to write history that rests on a foundation of rock-solid scholarship and reads like a conversation in a bar with your nerdy friend." The informal writing lives up to this billing, with secondary commentary like, “surprise, surprise.”
As a book with a popular audience, it is one that also has an overt political agenda (and I don't say that as condemnation.) It is a book that is largely designed to correct your friends who have Molon Labe tattoos. Myke's title, "The Bronze Lie" is simply a new way of wording "The Spartan Mirage", a concept which has been present in scholarly circles for at least a century. His thesis is essentially that Spartan warriors were human: that they had foibles and flaws like the rest of us. Of course, he is very correct in this. As such, Myke tells us things that professional historians (and those of us who buy their books) have known for a long time: the Spartan state was highly repressive, the Spartan population was mostly slaves and second-class citizens, the elite Spartaitae (citizens) had a mediocre win-loss record on the battlefield, and Spartan citizens frequently fled from, and even surrendered in battles that weren't going their way.
But this, perhaps, is the fundamental problem with the book: who wants to hear this? The thesis of the book is likely to go-over like a lead balloon with those who have Molon Labe tattoos. Indeed, Myke writes that he received death threats in the process of researching and writing the book. The frameworks that Myke uses, such as toxic masculinity, give these readers an ideological excuse to dismiss the book out of hand, as the only other review I can see of this book already indicates.
Professional historians are likely already familiar with this topic, and likely to look askance at a book which includes wargames and reenacting in its bibliography before primary sources. Likewise, historians will not be impressed that Myke disagrees with modern scholars because he has, "participated in enough reenactments to know what this entails." There are no footnotes, at least not in the version of the book I purchased. Does Myke read classical languages, or is he using sources entirely in translation? His translation of Archidamus in Thucydides reads like The Message translation of the bible. While he is very clear and upfront about his biases (commendable), he is more silent on the scholarly apparatus that underpins his work. Likewise, separating sources into the category of “Osprey Books” and “Other Modern Works,” will likely not please historians. So, the target audience of the book is a popular modern audience who does not have a strong background in ancient warfare, and is not invested in the modern Spartan myth?
Myke is an engaging writer, and even a competent military historian. This book moves beyond the realm of military history into social, cultural, and intellectual history, and it is clear that Myke does not have as strong background in these areas. For example, he claims that helots “outnumbered Spartan citizenry by a huge number.” This is where a more formal scholarly apparatus would be useful: Does Myke agree with Paul Cartledge or Richard Talbert’s models of 10:1 or 8:1? Does he buy into Thomas Figueira’s newer estimates of a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio? Instead we are left with a blanket claim about the nature of Spartan society with no supporting evidence.
The book also suffers from something akin to mission creep. A list of laser-focused objectives in the introduction gives way to a book that is artificially divided into three sections, some of which have no-overt bearing on the initial objectives. Myke tries to describe Spartan society, its ethos, the entirety of Spartan military history, how ancient battles functioned broadly, how to analyze ancient sources, and the historical memory of Sparta in modern politics. In the end, we are left with a book that attempts to do too much and is overly guided by its (probably correct) anti-Spartan thesis. This is the frustrating part: Myke is talented writer. His thesis is essentially right. But to quote his analysis of Archidamus, “being right isn’t the same as being convincing.”
This is not the work of a serious professional historian. Myke is upfront about this, saying, "My only qualification is that I really, really, like this stuff." He desires to reach a popular audience, informing us, "writing Legion Versus Phalanx cemented my belief that it's possible to write history that rests on a foundation of rock-solid scholarship and reads like a conversation in a bar with your nerdy friend." The informal writing lives up to this billing, with secondary commentary like, “surprise, surprise.”
As a book with a popular audience, it is one that also has an overt political agenda (and I don't say that as condemnation.) It is a book that is largely designed to correct your friends who have Molon Labe tattoos. Myke's title, "The Bronze Lie" is simply a new way of wording "The Spartan Mirage", a concept which has been present in scholarly circles for at least a century. His thesis is essentially that Spartan warriors were human: that they had foibles and flaws like the rest of us. Of course, he is very correct in this. As such, Myke tells us things that professional historians (and those of us who buy their books) have known for a long time: the Spartan state was highly repressive, the Spartan population was mostly slaves and second-class citizens, the elite Spartaitae (citizens) had a mediocre win-loss record on the battlefield, and Spartan citizens frequently fled from, and even surrendered in battles that weren't going their way.
But this, perhaps, is the fundamental problem with the book: who wants to hear this? The thesis of the book is likely to go-over like a lead balloon with those who have Molon Labe tattoos. Indeed, Myke writes that he received death threats in the process of researching and writing the book. The frameworks that Myke uses, such as toxic masculinity, give these readers an ideological excuse to dismiss the book out of hand, as the only other review I can see of this book already indicates.
Professional historians are likely already familiar with this topic, and likely to look askance at a book which includes wargames and reenacting in its bibliography before primary sources. Likewise, historians will not be impressed that Myke disagrees with modern scholars because he has, "participated in enough reenactments to know what this entails." There are no footnotes, at least not in the version of the book I purchased. Does Myke read classical languages, or is he using sources entirely in translation? His translation of Archidamus in Thucydides reads like The Message translation of the bible. While he is very clear and upfront about his biases (commendable), he is more silent on the scholarly apparatus that underpins his work. Likewise, separating sources into the category of “Osprey Books” and “Other Modern Works,” will likely not please historians. So, the target audience of the book is a popular modern audience who does not have a strong background in ancient warfare, and is not invested in the modern Spartan myth?
Myke is an engaging writer, and even a competent military historian. This book moves beyond the realm of military history into social, cultural, and intellectual history, and it is clear that Myke does not have as strong background in these areas. For example, he claims that helots “outnumbered Spartan citizenry by a huge number.” This is where a more formal scholarly apparatus would be useful: Does Myke agree with Paul Cartledge or Richard Talbert’s models of 10:1 or 8:1? Does he buy into Thomas Figueira’s newer estimates of a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio? Instead we are left with a blanket claim about the nature of Spartan society with no supporting evidence.
The book also suffers from something akin to mission creep. A list of laser-focused objectives in the introduction gives way to a book that is artificially divided into three sections, some of which have no-overt bearing on the initial objectives. Myke tries to describe Spartan society, its ethos, the entirety of Spartan military history, how ancient battles functioned broadly, how to analyze ancient sources, and the historical memory of Sparta in modern politics. In the end, we are left with a book that attempts to do too much and is overly guided by its (probably correct) anti-Spartan thesis. This is the frustrating part: Myke is talented writer. His thesis is essentially right. But to quote his analysis of Archidamus, “being right isn’t the same as being convincing.”
September 21, 2021
The only honest part of this book, is the writer being straight about him NOT being an academic.
As you go through the book you realise that what the writer is doing, is NOT a critical review of his subject matter. Instead he is essentially nitpicking (and even this is done very poorly) in an effort to support his prepositions.
He is even open about his motive. He explains that he aims to destroy the myth, in an effort to disengage people from using it for Nationalistic ways.
It is unethical, to say the least, exercising historical revisionism on another peoples history because somebody somewhere in the US, or in Nazi Germany used comparative aesthetics to express his extremist view.
Don't waist your time/money on this one.
Visit directly the sources for yourself (Herodotus, Thucidides etc) since they make a far better and more revealing reads, or simply follow the works of credible and academic writers, who actually know what they are writing about and don't have an agenda.
As you go through the book you realise that what the writer is doing, is NOT a critical review of his subject matter. Instead he is essentially nitpicking (and even this is done very poorly) in an effort to support his prepositions.
He is even open about his motive. He explains that he aims to destroy the myth, in an effort to disengage people from using it for Nationalistic ways.
It is unethical, to say the least, exercising historical revisionism on another peoples history because somebody somewhere in the US, or in Nazi Germany used comparative aesthetics to express his extremist view.
Don't waist your time/money on this one.
Visit directly the sources for yourself (Herodotus, Thucidides etc) since they make a far better and more revealing reads, or simply follow the works of credible and academic writers, who actually know what they are writing about and don't have an agenda.
October 8, 2021
Myke Cole sets out to deconstruct the myth of Spartan warrior supremacy, not out of hostility to the Spartans, but frustration with the mythologizing of these very real people who had gifts and virtues, but also flaws. Another significant motivation is the misuse of the myth rather than the reality of the Spartans in support of hard right ideologies, and not just in the US, but at least throughout the cultural West.
The Spartans are revered and nearly worshipped as the ideal warriors, men who valued war, despised money, and served the good of the state over personal reputation and comfort. What Myke Cole shows us, in this careful, well-researched, and very readable book, is a culture of men as variable and human as any others. They were in some ways better soldiers than others contemporary to them. The Spartan hoplites did some regular training. It was more than most other Greek city-states did, but nothing close to the professionalism attributed to them by myth. It did give them a degree of organization and discipline that was, for most of their history, rare in the armies of other contemporary armies. That was a real advantage, especially when fighting other Greek hoplites.
Unfortunately, a serious look at their history shows Spartans displaying some real weaknesses as soldiers. They were slow to adapt to changes in military practice and tools. They regarded missile weapon (for instance, bows and arrows) as "effeminate," never developed their own cavalry forces, and were never very effective at naval warfare. They also were never very good at scouting the ground ahead of them, or posting lookouts when they were encamped.
We also see Spartans, including Spartan kings, sometimes fleeing the battlefield, taking bribes, paying bribes. Sometimes, of course, these are the right military decision--but even when they are, they're contrary to the cherished myth of Sparta. More clearly from a modern viewpoint, Spartan use of diplomacy and soft power of all kinds, as well as really excellent spy work, seems obviously sensible. Why fight and lose soldiers' lives, if you can get what you need without fighting? It's not, however, in keeping with the Spartan myth.
I'm not doing justice to Cole's thesis, and I strongly recommend reading the book. It is very readable, although at few points, in his commitment to presenting a solid case while honestly presenting where the evidence is incomplete, where sources disagree, and in analyzing as many battles as practical so that the reader can evaluate the evidence, I found it wise to take a couple of breaks to let the argument so far settle into my mind and think about it for a while. I kept coming back to it, though, and overall it was a compelling read.
Highly recommended.
I bought this book.
The Spartans are revered and nearly worshipped as the ideal warriors, men who valued war, despised money, and served the good of the state over personal reputation and comfort. What Myke Cole shows us, in this careful, well-researched, and very readable book, is a culture of men as variable and human as any others. They were in some ways better soldiers than others contemporary to them. The Spartan hoplites did some regular training. It was more than most other Greek city-states did, but nothing close to the professionalism attributed to them by myth. It did give them a degree of organization and discipline that was, for most of their history, rare in the armies of other contemporary armies. That was a real advantage, especially when fighting other Greek hoplites.
Unfortunately, a serious look at their history shows Spartans displaying some real weaknesses as soldiers. They were slow to adapt to changes in military practice and tools. They regarded missile weapon (for instance, bows and arrows) as "effeminate," never developed their own cavalry forces, and were never very effective at naval warfare. They also were never very good at scouting the ground ahead of them, or posting lookouts when they were encamped.
We also see Spartans, including Spartan kings, sometimes fleeing the battlefield, taking bribes, paying bribes. Sometimes, of course, these are the right military decision--but even when they are, they're contrary to the cherished myth of Sparta. More clearly from a modern viewpoint, Spartan use of diplomacy and soft power of all kinds, as well as really excellent spy work, seems obviously sensible. Why fight and lose soldiers' lives, if you can get what you need without fighting? It's not, however, in keeping with the Spartan myth.
I'm not doing justice to Cole's thesis, and I strongly recommend reading the book. It is very readable, although at few points, in his commitment to presenting a solid case while honestly presenting where the evidence is incomplete, where sources disagree, and in analyzing as many battles as practical so that the reader can evaluate the evidence, I found it wise to take a couple of breaks to let the argument so far settle into my mind and think about it for a while. I kept coming back to it, though, and overall it was a compelling read.
Highly recommended.
I bought this book.
December 6, 2021
How much did the Athenians pay him to write this? The Bronze Lie is an attempt to destroy the "myth" of Sparta's superiority and invincibility by reviewing their historical record and highlighting their failures on both a strategical and tactical level. This is to counter what the author feels as unfair praise to the Spartans, with him taking particular dislike to the "far" right and anyone that quotes the line "Come and Take it". The movie 300 was also a source for his inspiration to write this book, as too many people walked away with misconceptions from a movie about a comic book that was a loose interpretation of the battle of Thermopylae. The kicker is that the author can't dispute the main praise worthy characteristic about them, which was that they were well trained warriors. If you are going to write a lengthy book about a topic, why waste it on an audience that would never bother to read it. Someone that walks away from the movie 300 and viewed it as a great historical documentary will never read this book.
Other frustrating things about this book include the author citing a Twitter thread, his wargaming experience to understand behavior in battle, and the condescending and uneven application of group competency. All of this and more reinforces the idea that you can't trust the author to be reliable since he has a clear agenda. Throughout the book, the author assumes the worst of the Spartans, and the best of others in a revisionist way. If you want to read about the Spartans, I suggest looking into Paul Carteledge's "The Spartans".
Other frustrating things about this book include the author citing a Twitter thread, his wargaming experience to understand behavior in battle, and the condescending and uneven application of group competency. All of this and more reinforces the idea that you can't trust the author to be reliable since he has a clear agenda. Throughout the book, the author assumes the worst of the Spartans, and the best of others in a revisionist way. If you want to read about the Spartans, I suggest looking into Paul Carteledge's "The Spartans".
October 9, 2023
I really struggled with this book, I kept wondering whether I should give it more credit for the dull analysis of ancient battles but ultimately I couldn't do it because so much of the book was risible, not least the 'full colour' illustrations of some very odd looking Spartans in various armour but almost invariably always barefoot - seriously did the guy just like drawing feet? - I know foot wear wasn't the universal clothing item it has since become but I am sure plain efficiency meant that most soldiers would have worn something when going into battle and on long marches.
Once you start looking it is almost impossible not to be overwhelmed by the book's numerous idiocies and even when his heart is in the right place it is hard to take the author seriously. I am going to deal with some of the issues I found problematic, I doubt I will touch more than a few of the vast number of issues I had because I will become boring, and also bored.
First I give credit to Mr. Cole's desire to tackle 'toxic masculinity' and the way 'Sparta' and 'Spartan' have been adopted as a leitmotif by many right wing groups in the USA and elsewhere. But Sparta has always had an absurdly sympathetic press - going back to ancient times were 'Spartan' ways, dress and customs were all the rage with the jeunesse dorre of Athens and other cities - but how seriously it was meant is debatable - did those spoiled sons of Athens like Alcibiades really regret that they did not spend their childhood in savage packs, always hungry and cold, forced to steal food and if challenged having to behave like the Spartan boy who hid a live fox under his tunic and refused to reveal it as the fox ate away at his stomach and nether regions till he collapsed dead? Is this the childhood they wanted for their own sons? Of course not and, let me also say, that this particular story like so many stories about Spartan ways is ludicrously unbelievable - did those questioning the boy not see he had a fox under his tunic (Spartan tunics were minimal T-shaped garment hanging off the shoulders of very thin material providing minimal cover and very little warmth)? How could they not see even a dead fox under a boys tunic and would they really stand by and say nothing while copious amounts of blood poured out of the boy? Like most Spartan stories it is just unbelievable.
Mr. Cole links the necessity for his demolition of the Spartan myths on the huge popularity of the film '300' and which has provided so much imagery that is sold at various right wing rallies. The film was hugely silly with its monstrous rhinoceroses and cliched evil Persians but, dare I admit it, in the UK and many places in Europe the Spartans running around in nothing but their little loin cloths beating their chests and being ever so macho, were seen as hugely gay - and I mean homo-erotically gay. However much they might have enjoyed the battle scenes most straight men couldn't help giggling at its over the top butch characters as obvious closet cases.
Clearly there are vast cultural differences between Europe and the USA and when Mr. Cole relates that articles he has written (in the popular press) questioning the Spartan myth have earned him death threats I can only say long may those differences exist. But let us be serious all those 'toxic' young men sporting imitation Leonidas helmets, or much more likely key chains or fridge magnets, are as likely as Alcibiades to allow a fox to gnaw away at their vitals, though very unlikely to actually know that that is what being Spartan means.
Sparta is fascinating because we know so little about it, but we know a great deal more than what was said in the ancient sources, none of them, that have survived, written by a Spartan. Archaeology is helping to provide answers as well as questions - for example the famous Spartan 'mess' buildings were all Spartan warriors ate and to whom they had to pay heavy dues are completely absent from the archaeological record even though they must have been numerous and substantial.
But Mr. Cole is really an ex-US army member into war games and reenactments and he brings his service as well as war games and reenactment experience into his observations on ancient armies and battles. It is one of the most flawed features of his book, to imagine that the experience in highly bureaucratic 21st army or war games on Saturday afternoon can provide insights that cross over two millennium of history and differing cultures to provide meaningful connection are not simply fallacious but absurd. If you doubt me try and understand what your own world and country was like fifty years ago, simply watching old television programmes from the 1970's is to walk into a world of unimaginable misogyny, racism and prejudice in programmes made by people who in almost every case would have considered themselves liberal, if not left-wing and certainly of advanced views.
Because Sparta has lived so long as a legend despite its obvious feet of clay means that a real examination of Sparta could be fascinating. There are so many things that we know so much more about, particularly about property ownership, the role women etc. that by concentrating so exclusively on the tendentious ancient texts and on ancient battles that Mr. Cole doesn't really attempt to ask, let alone answer the really interesting questions about when the Sparta of legend cease to exist, or even begin to disappear.
I have said enough, or really I have said all I have the patience to say. The book is not bad, it is simply not good and almost any book written with an agenda of counteracting particular cultural trends is almost inevitably doomed to rapid obsolescence.
Once you start looking it is almost impossible not to be overwhelmed by the book's numerous idiocies and even when his heart is in the right place it is hard to take the author seriously. I am going to deal with some of the issues I found problematic, I doubt I will touch more than a few of the vast number of issues I had because I will become boring, and also bored.
First I give credit to Mr. Cole's desire to tackle 'toxic masculinity' and the way 'Sparta' and 'Spartan' have been adopted as a leitmotif by many right wing groups in the USA and elsewhere. But Sparta has always had an absurdly sympathetic press - going back to ancient times were 'Spartan' ways, dress and customs were all the rage with the jeunesse dorre of Athens and other cities - but how seriously it was meant is debatable - did those spoiled sons of Athens like Alcibiades really regret that they did not spend their childhood in savage packs, always hungry and cold, forced to steal food and if challenged having to behave like the Spartan boy who hid a live fox under his tunic and refused to reveal it as the fox ate away at his stomach and nether regions till he collapsed dead? Is this the childhood they wanted for their own sons? Of course not and, let me also say, that this particular story like so many stories about Spartan ways is ludicrously unbelievable - did those questioning the boy not see he had a fox under his tunic (Spartan tunics were minimal T-shaped garment hanging off the shoulders of very thin material providing minimal cover and very little warmth)? How could they not see even a dead fox under a boys tunic and would they really stand by and say nothing while copious amounts of blood poured out of the boy? Like most Spartan stories it is just unbelievable.
Mr. Cole links the necessity for his demolition of the Spartan myths on the huge popularity of the film '300' and which has provided so much imagery that is sold at various right wing rallies. The film was hugely silly with its monstrous rhinoceroses and cliched evil Persians but, dare I admit it, in the UK and many places in Europe the Spartans running around in nothing but their little loin cloths beating their chests and being ever so macho, were seen as hugely gay - and I mean homo-erotically gay. However much they might have enjoyed the battle scenes most straight men couldn't help giggling at its over the top butch characters as obvious closet cases.
Clearly there are vast cultural differences between Europe and the USA and when Mr. Cole relates that articles he has written (in the popular press) questioning the Spartan myth have earned him death threats I can only say long may those differences exist. But let us be serious all those 'toxic' young men sporting imitation Leonidas helmets, or much more likely key chains or fridge magnets, are as likely as Alcibiades to allow a fox to gnaw away at their vitals, though very unlikely to actually know that that is what being Spartan means.
Sparta is fascinating because we know so little about it, but we know a great deal more than what was said in the ancient sources, none of them, that have survived, written by a Spartan. Archaeology is helping to provide answers as well as questions - for example the famous Spartan 'mess' buildings were all Spartan warriors ate and to whom they had to pay heavy dues are completely absent from the archaeological record even though they must have been numerous and substantial.
But Mr. Cole is really an ex-US army member into war games and reenactments and he brings his service as well as war games and reenactment experience into his observations on ancient armies and battles. It is one of the most flawed features of his book, to imagine that the experience in highly bureaucratic 21st army or war games on Saturday afternoon can provide insights that cross over two millennium of history and differing cultures to provide meaningful connection are not simply fallacious but absurd. If you doubt me try and understand what your own world and country was like fifty years ago, simply watching old television programmes from the 1970's is to walk into a world of unimaginable misogyny, racism and prejudice in programmes made by people who in almost every case would have considered themselves liberal, if not left-wing and certainly of advanced views.
Because Sparta has lived so long as a legend despite its obvious feet of clay means that a real examination of Sparta could be fascinating. There are so many things that we know so much more about, particularly about property ownership, the role women etc. that by concentrating so exclusively on the tendentious ancient texts and on ancient battles that Mr. Cole doesn't really attempt to ask, let alone answer the really interesting questions about when the Sparta of legend cease to exist, or even begin to disappear.
I have said enough, or really I have said all I have the patience to say. The book is not bad, it is simply not good and almost any book written with an agenda of counteracting particular cultural trends is almost inevitably doomed to rapid obsolescence.
November 10, 2021
Excellent and insightful
Although I don't agree with everything myke says in this book, he openly admits that alot of history is assumption of things which we can never prove , but to be right was never the endgoal of this book, but to make you think for yourself. He gives you all the information, tells you what it tells him, and for most of it I agree, but it has done it's job in making me think, hence we may not always agree on what we see at each point , but now after reading it I would love to sit and discuss it with myke.
It's a masterclass in Greek history, very well researched and delivered. And does exactly as I believe it was intended
Although I don't agree with everything myke says in this book, he openly admits that alot of history is assumption of things which we can never prove , but to be right was never the endgoal of this book, but to make you think for yourself. He gives you all the information, tells you what it tells him, and for most of it I agree, but it has done it's job in making me think, hence we may not always agree on what we see at each point , but now after reading it I would love to sit and discuss it with myke.
It's a masterclass in Greek history, very well researched and delivered. And does exactly as I believe it was intended
November 1, 2021
This book delighted me even though I am very much not the target audience. This book’s audience is white, male baby boomers. If you are related to one of these, I strongly recommend this book as a Christmas gift. He will enjoy it and he will enjoy telling you about it and in some small way, this will save America.
January 3, 2022
Many years ago I watched the movie 300 on an iMax giant screen in a packed cinema. The visuals and story are highly engaging. Yet I remember laughing out loud, drawing odd looks from those around me, when the Spartan narrator declares that they fought 'for freedom'. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is just one part of the 'Bronze Lie', which puts forward a patently false image of Sparta, one that has troubling resonance in parts of modern society.
In The Bronze Lie, Myke Cole takes on the myths about Sparta, primarily focusing on perhaps the core ideal, that of Spartans as super warriors. Upon this almost all else rests, from notions of fighting 'for freedom' and claimed disdain of wealth, luxury, individualism and the martial principles of honour, discipline, strength and courage.
By examining the actual record of Sparta from around 500 BC to 200 BC, Cole shows they were profoundly human. They lost more battles than they won. Sparta was not responsible for the two great victories it claimed (against Persia in the Greco-Persian wars where Athens rightly deserves most of the credit, and in the Peloponnesian war where Athens deserves most of the blame. They were often afraid. Their leaders bickered, took bribes, and made errors. They broke principles or invoked religious pretexts as suited their immediate needs. For a small society they had an outsized effect, but their most powerful tool ended up being their mythmaking rather than their swords.
Most notably, this was a society whose military and social norms consistently impeded their actual military achievements. They failed to adapt or innovate in the face of missile and cavalry attacks and had a bizarre inability to overcome siege walls. Their deeply unequal society - founded on mass slave labor - left the society with too few people to fight, and an unwillingness to risk too much loss or have the army away for too long lest the slaves revolt. They certainly have much that is admirable in moments, but the overall record is no brighter than several other ancient societies.
Cole writes engagingly, and has a very pleasing willingness to say 'I don't know' or 'scholars think it could be A or B, I agree with B'. You don't need to know much history to make sense of the argument, though I certainly I found I got more out of the sections I knew best, skimming over some of the very early or latter sections.
Cole concludes the book by discussing the problems of modern day Laconophillia. Among the growing far-right fascists in western society, Sparta is seen as the gold standard. This is deeply troubling. The Spartans were a disturbing society of slavery, inequality, aristocratic rule, widespread violence, comfort with tyranny and a repressive culture that ultimately led to their irrelevance and destruction. If this book does anything to help contemporary readers abandon their worship of an ugly strain of human history, it will be for the better.
Yet, I don't think we'll shake the fascination with Sparta anytime soon. For all that the actual record is mediocre and troubling, the values the myth seems to stand for - Honour, Discipline, Strength, Courage - are values we do need. The far right are not wrong to note that western society no longer seems to have the language to talk about or respect such values, and that they need to be part of our culture. Which raises the question: Is Sparta simply a proxy for these values that we could replace with a better proxy? Or is it the fact that such values are so rarely seen in an enduring societal fashion -rather than simply individual moments of their display - that Sparta seems to shine among the mud of human normality?
We can all find individuals who embody these values, but how do we - as a society - highlight them, and do so without falling into the trap of sclerotic and mythmaking behaviours that doomed the Spartans? And can we ever re-form a notion of Sparta that is both true to the historic record, helps us live up to those good ideals, while disclaiming the malevolent ideals it is too often celebrated for?
This book, written by one who has been a warrior and now is a scholar, is a good step. In returning to the actual history and actual human beings, Cole offers perhaps the most reliable foundation, though there are many long and difficult steps still to take.
In The Bronze Lie, Myke Cole takes on the myths about Sparta, primarily focusing on perhaps the core ideal, that of Spartans as super warriors. Upon this almost all else rests, from notions of fighting 'for freedom' and claimed disdain of wealth, luxury, individualism and the martial principles of honour, discipline, strength and courage.
By examining the actual record of Sparta from around 500 BC to 200 BC, Cole shows they were profoundly human. They lost more battles than they won. Sparta was not responsible for the two great victories it claimed (against Persia in the Greco-Persian wars where Athens rightly deserves most of the credit, and in the Peloponnesian war where Athens deserves most of the blame. They were often afraid. Their leaders bickered, took bribes, and made errors. They broke principles or invoked religious pretexts as suited their immediate needs. For a small society they had an outsized effect, but their most powerful tool ended up being their mythmaking rather than their swords.
Most notably, this was a society whose military and social norms consistently impeded their actual military achievements. They failed to adapt or innovate in the face of missile and cavalry attacks and had a bizarre inability to overcome siege walls. Their deeply unequal society - founded on mass slave labor - left the society with too few people to fight, and an unwillingness to risk too much loss or have the army away for too long lest the slaves revolt. They certainly have much that is admirable in moments, but the overall record is no brighter than several other ancient societies.
Cole writes engagingly, and has a very pleasing willingness to say 'I don't know' or 'scholars think it could be A or B, I agree with B'. You don't need to know much history to make sense of the argument, though I certainly I found I got more out of the sections I knew best, skimming over some of the very early or latter sections.
Cole concludes the book by discussing the problems of modern day Laconophillia. Among the growing far-right fascists in western society, Sparta is seen as the gold standard. This is deeply troubling. The Spartans were a disturbing society of slavery, inequality, aristocratic rule, widespread violence, comfort with tyranny and a repressive culture that ultimately led to their irrelevance and destruction. If this book does anything to help contemporary readers abandon their worship of an ugly strain of human history, it will be for the better.
Yet, I don't think we'll shake the fascination with Sparta anytime soon. For all that the actual record is mediocre and troubling, the values the myth seems to stand for - Honour, Discipline, Strength, Courage - are values we do need. The far right are not wrong to note that western society no longer seems to have the language to talk about or respect such values, and that they need to be part of our culture. Which raises the question: Is Sparta simply a proxy for these values that we could replace with a better proxy? Or is it the fact that such values are so rarely seen in an enduring societal fashion -rather than simply individual moments of their display - that Sparta seems to shine among the mud of human normality?
We can all find individuals who embody these values, but how do we - as a society - highlight them, and do so without falling into the trap of sclerotic and mythmaking behaviours that doomed the Spartans? And can we ever re-form a notion of Sparta that is both true to the historic record, helps us live up to those good ideals, while disclaiming the malevolent ideals it is too often celebrated for?
This book, written by one who has been a warrior and now is a scholar, is a good step. In returning to the actual history and actual human beings, Cole offers perhaps the most reliable foundation, though there are many long and difficult steps still to take.
September 27, 2021
This is a good book that ultimately was just not for me. The writing style is readable and clear, if not quite as personable as I was expecting. In the end, I was just not as interested in the detailed nitty gritty of ancient warfare, and I guess I was hoping for more social commentary as the myth the author was taking on relates to today.
If you're interested in military history, ancient Greek/Mediterranean history, definitely give it a shot! Ooh, it would also be good for fantasy writers looking to up their world building game by getting plausible real world details.
If you're interested in military history, ancient Greek/Mediterranean history, definitely give it a shot! Ooh, it would also be good for fantasy writers looking to up their world building game by getting plausible real world details.
November 29, 2021
Comprehensive analysis
This is a pretty detailed look at everything known about Spartan warfare. It has excellent coverage of each of the battles, and framing descriptions of the different eras. It can read a little like a catalogue at times, with lists of battles and outcomes, but the summaries at the end help to make sense of the more detailed lists. I thought it made an excellent case for the author’s contentions about Sparta, and the section at the end examining the cost of the myths around it was compelling.
This is a pretty detailed look at everything known about Spartan warfare. It has excellent coverage of each of the battles, and framing descriptions of the different eras. It can read a little like a catalogue at times, with lists of battles and outcomes, but the summaries at the end help to make sense of the more detailed lists. I thought it made an excellent case for the author’s contentions about Sparta, and the section at the end examining the cost of the myths around it was compelling.
May 17, 2022
This is a brilliant and necessary book that I exposes the mythology of Sparta and the historiography of the myths creation, without then needing to reduce the past to statistics. A careful examination of the evidence, a solid knowledge of current research, as well-written as a good novel. What more could I want?
November 30, 2024
This was a fun book to read as I constantly debated with the author in my head, but at the end of the day I felt like it was an unfair treatment of the Lakedaimonians. On the positive side, Cole is an engaging writer when talking about the personalities, individual battles, and military preparations. You'll also get a pretty good overview of all of the major campaigns of the Spartans in a straightforward, chronological, and easy to understand organization, unlike Paul Cartledge's The Spartans, which has great detail but a nonsensical method of organization and a Herodotean tendency to loop and weave various threads in the middle of historical narratives.
On the negative side, I felt like Cole just wasn't being honest. The thesis itself feels like something I would have come up with for one of my undergraduate classes, where I would be purposefully be over the top or inflammatory just to be interesting. (In my sophomore seminar class for my Religion major, I once did a presentation on how "The Founders as Failures," where I surveyed the goals of three major religious figures (Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius) and concluded for the sake of the project that they had failed in achieving them).
First, Cole unnecessarily widens "The Bronze Lie" into the absurd, basically including any assertion about the Spartans that any dude-bro off of the street might tell you. This naturally gives him a lot of ammunition, but is essentially a straw man when it comes to anyone who knows anything about Ancient Greece. No one serious is saying that the Spartans are excellent mariners, so bringing up their naval losses just feels like it's done in bad faith. The same with their ability to conquer large amounts of territory. No one serious says that the Spartans were just as successful as Rome. No one serious says that the Spartans were unable to be defeated. Cole only gets these over on the reader by appealing to the vague assertion of some far-right luddite who knows nothing about Ancient Greece beyond 300, Molwn Labe, or that the helmet insignia looks kind of cool on his refurbished .45 1911. The evidence is quite clear, however, that essentially every ancient source from the time of the Spartans recognized that no-one wanted to be across from the Spartans in the hoplite battle line.
The worst part for me, however, was Cole's inconsistent application of the "Law of Competency." At many points in the book, Cole asserts that what we are told in the historical narratives is simply unrealistic or impossible because it makes one side or the other look like they were incompetent. For example, the Greek soldiers holding the flanking trail at Thermopylae could not have simply been unprepared, the Persians simply could not have advanced into unknown terrain, etc. This is used quite often to discard wholesale large parts of Herodotos, Thucydides, and Xenophon in order to create new narratives as to what the Persians/other Spartan opponents were ACTUALLY doing. But then Cole turns around and uses the unedited historical narrative to somehow prove that ACTUALLY it is the Spartans who were dumb and incompetent.
The best example of this comes in the Battle of Plataea (479BC). Before this incident, Cole tells of the Battle of Thermopylae and how the Persians must have known about the goat path that would flank the Spartans, because there was simply no way that they would advance without scouting ahead like a professional military. He says that Ephialtes, the famous Greek traitor, is not a real figure, that multiple local sources could have done the same thing, or that Persian scouts would have discovered the route, directly contradicting Herodotos. Then, at Plataea, the Spartan King orders the Spartans to withdraw to a better strategic position. A young Spartan captain by the name of Amompharetus speaks out against this, refusing to leave his post because this is against Spartan law. The delay takes most of the night, and sets the Spartans up poorly for the battle the following day, though they manage to win. At this point in the writing, I am expecting Cole to interject with the idea that this part of the story is made up because it makes the Spartans look too incompetent. He never does. He takes the Amompharetus story at face value, while discarding the Ephialtes story. I think that this is strange, so I check the bibliography. Sure enough, Peter Green's "The Greco-Persian Wars" is listed-- just what I was looking for. In Green's history, he quite clearly looks at the textual issues in Herodotos, and comes to the conclusion that this story of Amompharetus is a later exaggeration due to Amompharetus' insistence upon holding the post of rear-guard, which makes complete sense. Cole never even mentions this possibility.
While it was fun to read and argue with, Cole's unfairness and unwillingness to CONSISTENTLY apply his law of competency to the Spartans AND their opponents makes this book unreliable. Additionally, Cole admits at the outset that his target are "far-right" political activists of today, which naturally brings the reliability of his history into question. Just like many present-day histories of the American Civil War, the goal of this book is not a real engagement with the people of the past, but a way to score cheap political points by profaning one of the opposition's sacred cows.
(But I still had fun)
On the negative side, I felt like Cole just wasn't being honest. The thesis itself feels like something I would have come up with for one of my undergraduate classes, where I would be purposefully be over the top or inflammatory just to be interesting. (In my sophomore seminar class for my Religion major, I once did a presentation on how "The Founders as Failures," where I surveyed the goals of three major religious figures (Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius) and concluded for the sake of the project that they had failed in achieving them).
First, Cole unnecessarily widens "The Bronze Lie" into the absurd, basically including any assertion about the Spartans that any dude-bro off of the street might tell you. This naturally gives him a lot of ammunition, but is essentially a straw man when it comes to anyone who knows anything about Ancient Greece. No one serious is saying that the Spartans are excellent mariners, so bringing up their naval losses just feels like it's done in bad faith. The same with their ability to conquer large amounts of territory. No one serious says that the Spartans were just as successful as Rome. No one serious says that the Spartans were unable to be defeated. Cole only gets these over on the reader by appealing to the vague assertion of some far-right luddite who knows nothing about Ancient Greece beyond 300, Molwn Labe, or that the helmet insignia looks kind of cool on his refurbished .45 1911. The evidence is quite clear, however, that essentially every ancient source from the time of the Spartans recognized that no-one wanted to be across from the Spartans in the hoplite battle line.
The worst part for me, however, was Cole's inconsistent application of the "Law of Competency." At many points in the book, Cole asserts that what we are told in the historical narratives is simply unrealistic or impossible because it makes one side or the other look like they were incompetent. For example, the Greek soldiers holding the flanking trail at Thermopylae could not have simply been unprepared, the Persians simply could not have advanced into unknown terrain, etc. This is used quite often to discard wholesale large parts of Herodotos, Thucydides, and Xenophon in order to create new narratives as to what the Persians/other Spartan opponents were ACTUALLY doing. But then Cole turns around and uses the unedited historical narrative to somehow prove that ACTUALLY it is the Spartans who were dumb and incompetent.
The best example of this comes in the Battle of Plataea (479BC). Before this incident, Cole tells of the Battle of Thermopylae and how the Persians must have known about the goat path that would flank the Spartans, because there was simply no way that they would advance without scouting ahead like a professional military. He says that Ephialtes, the famous Greek traitor, is not a real figure, that multiple local sources could have done the same thing, or that Persian scouts would have discovered the route, directly contradicting Herodotos. Then, at Plataea, the Spartan King orders the Spartans to withdraw to a better strategic position. A young Spartan captain by the name of Amompharetus speaks out against this, refusing to leave his post because this is against Spartan law. The delay takes most of the night, and sets the Spartans up poorly for the battle the following day, though they manage to win. At this point in the writing, I am expecting Cole to interject with the idea that this part of the story is made up because it makes the Spartans look too incompetent. He never does. He takes the Amompharetus story at face value, while discarding the Ephialtes story. I think that this is strange, so I check the bibliography. Sure enough, Peter Green's "The Greco-Persian Wars" is listed-- just what I was looking for. In Green's history, he quite clearly looks at the textual issues in Herodotos, and comes to the conclusion that this story of Amompharetus is a later exaggeration due to Amompharetus' insistence upon holding the post of rear-guard, which makes complete sense. Cole never even mentions this possibility.
While it was fun to read and argue with, Cole's unfairness and unwillingness to CONSISTENTLY apply his law of competency to the Spartans AND their opponents makes this book unreliable. Additionally, Cole admits at the outset that his target are "far-right" political activists of today, which naturally brings the reliability of his history into question. Just like many present-day histories of the American Civil War, the goal of this book is not a real engagement with the people of the past, but a way to score cheap political points by profaning one of the opposition's sacred cows.
(But I still had fun)
December 12, 2021
Though I appreciate what the author is trying to do, the book is boring. If you like books with just lists of people, places, and things with no narrative, this book is for you. It makes me think of an AP History research paper, well researched but very dry and the thesis is repeated over and over again verbatim.
July 19, 2022
Clearly very well researched and it’s relatively easy to read. However the book loses impetus in the middle and sort of becomes a list of battles. This makes it hard to maintain interest even for someone interested in ancient warfare. Overall worth a read, but a thematic approach rather than a chronological may have helped the book maintain momentum.
May 30, 2023
They were the Spartans, an elite and fanatical society renowned for their dedication to developing and maintaining military superiority over the Greeks and those who came against them, most notably the Persians. The Spartans sacrificed every aspect of their culture to that cause, earning them admiration and wonder ever since, especially among military thinkers envious of Sparta’s reputation. But was it real? Was Sparta too good to be true? Myke Cole thinks so, and he is here to burst the Spartan bubble.
Cole begins with a passionate explanation on why the myth of Spartan military supremacy, beloved by the modern Far Right in particular, is toxic and needs to be exposed. He sets about his task with gusto. He describes Spartan society and culture, knocking down each myth as it arises and revealing an idealised apartheid system that doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny. Cole highlights the contradictions at all points of the myth, from the curious upbringing of eugenically selected boys to become warriors to the notion that Spartans were super-soldiers. He then takes us into Sparta’s wars and battles, beginning in the Archaic period (800-490 BC) and the First Messenian War, which lasted a suspiciously long time for proper myth creation. Cole moves from battle to battle in this and subsequent wars, highlighting Sparta’s failures as much as their successes. He notes that they were particularly inept at conducting sieges.
The Greco-Persian wars loom large in Sparta’s reputation, particularly the famous last stand at Thermopylae. Cole is having none of it, and to that he adds Plataea as a battle where you need to take the much vaunted Spartan achievements with more than a pinch of salt, though he acknowledges the Spartans as excellent heavy infantry in combat. For the Peloponnesian War, Cole argues that Athens lost it more than Sparta won it. He essays this argument through another series of battles in which the legend of Spartan superiority was finally and fatally punctured despite some subsequent victories that led to victory in the war. Nevertheless, Spartan supremacy lasted only one year followed by a three decade long decline, punctuated by victories and defeats in accordance with the rest of their military history. What remained of Spartan power was broken by Thebes at Leuctra in 371. Cole continues his relentless assault on the Spartans, labelling them as ‘irreformable’ and ‘irrelevant’ as their state dissolved into the Hellenistic world. He concludes with an unusual and fascinating overview of why destroying the Spartan myth matters today in the continuing fetishisation of them, particularly by the Far Right. A note on historiography and a solid bibliography complete Cole’s excursion into the Spartan world.
The myth of Spartan military supremacy has been exploded in academic circles for over a century as Cole acknowledges in his introduction. However, Cole brings that into the public sphere with a refreshing enthusiasm. There will be those who bemoan the lack of footnotes and referencing, but Cole makes it clear those aren’t difficult to find if you follow the original sources. A second quibble is Cole’s win/lose summaries of Spartan battles that might be a bit too simplistic, though his detailed analyses of many of the actions provides enough cover here. Overall, Cole makes a compelling case for burying the Spartan myth and the timeliness of the book is evident in a world where too many see the Spartans as exemplars rather than the flawed people they actually were. Anyone interested in Sparta and ancient warfare will enjoy this and appreciate Cole’s military insight.
Cole begins with a passionate explanation on why the myth of Spartan military supremacy, beloved by the modern Far Right in particular, is toxic and needs to be exposed. He sets about his task with gusto. He describes Spartan society and culture, knocking down each myth as it arises and revealing an idealised apartheid system that doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny. Cole highlights the contradictions at all points of the myth, from the curious upbringing of eugenically selected boys to become warriors to the notion that Spartans were super-soldiers. He then takes us into Sparta’s wars and battles, beginning in the Archaic period (800-490 BC) and the First Messenian War, which lasted a suspiciously long time for proper myth creation. Cole moves from battle to battle in this and subsequent wars, highlighting Sparta’s failures as much as their successes. He notes that they were particularly inept at conducting sieges.
The Greco-Persian wars loom large in Sparta’s reputation, particularly the famous last stand at Thermopylae. Cole is having none of it, and to that he adds Plataea as a battle where you need to take the much vaunted Spartan achievements with more than a pinch of salt, though he acknowledges the Spartans as excellent heavy infantry in combat. For the Peloponnesian War, Cole argues that Athens lost it more than Sparta won it. He essays this argument through another series of battles in which the legend of Spartan superiority was finally and fatally punctured despite some subsequent victories that led to victory in the war. Nevertheless, Spartan supremacy lasted only one year followed by a three decade long decline, punctuated by victories and defeats in accordance with the rest of their military history. What remained of Spartan power was broken by Thebes at Leuctra in 371. Cole continues his relentless assault on the Spartans, labelling them as ‘irreformable’ and ‘irrelevant’ as their state dissolved into the Hellenistic world. He concludes with an unusual and fascinating overview of why destroying the Spartan myth matters today in the continuing fetishisation of them, particularly by the Far Right. A note on historiography and a solid bibliography complete Cole’s excursion into the Spartan world.
The myth of Spartan military supremacy has been exploded in academic circles for over a century as Cole acknowledges in his introduction. However, Cole brings that into the public sphere with a refreshing enthusiasm. There will be those who bemoan the lack of footnotes and referencing, but Cole makes it clear those aren’t difficult to find if you follow the original sources. A second quibble is Cole’s win/lose summaries of Spartan battles that might be a bit too simplistic, though his detailed analyses of many of the actions provides enough cover here. Overall, Cole makes a compelling case for burying the Spartan myth and the timeliness of the book is evident in a world where too many see the Spartans as exemplars rather than the flawed people they actually were. Anyone interested in Sparta and ancient warfare will enjoy this and appreciate Cole’s military insight.
October 16, 2021
This is an informative, entertaining, persuasive reckoning of the real character of Sparta and Spartan history. Myke Cole writes well, of course, but what's most impressive about this book is his careful scholarship. A great deal of study went into this book.
The author is reacting to the right-wing fetishizing of Spartan training and Spartan domination in war--supposed, one must add. Because of modern mythologizing, Sparta has come to hold a strange position of honor among gun lovers and others on the far right, and Myke Cole does an amazing job of setting the record straight here. He does it methodically, chronicling the victories and defeats, the bribes offered and bribes taken, the errors and oversights and bungled campaigns over centuries, giving credit where credit is due but also brutally casting in sharp relief all of the deviations from the myth of Spartan invincibility and Spartan honor.
The argument is devastating and undeniable.
What I like is how Cole brings the reader along the whole time. Every example of Spartan fallibility is brought back to the main argument, showing how it doesn't match the myth. Everything is made explicit, and the thousandth (possible exaggeration) time he tells us how they should have scouted ahead and walked into an ambush or refused to innovate and got overrun or relied too much on hoplites and got beaten by archers, the reader knows that he has proven his point. Sure, the Spartans were good fighters, better trained than the typical fighters of the time, but as a culture they had huge blind spots that an innate conservatism made almost impossible to correct.
What I found most interesting to learn was how the Peers--the heart of Spartan society and army--dwindled in numbers over time because of a rigid economic system that squeezed families out if their wealth dropped below a certain point. Instead of broadening the base, instead of reforming the system, they allowed their greatest asset to dwindle. They would rather have fewer Peers every year than allow undeserving citizens to qualify.
They believed their own PR, and they choked on it. It was a slow moving tragedy.
The strength of this book--a minute recitation of historical events in context--becomes tedious, I'll admit. I enjoyed reading about their history to a point, but the last third got hard to read. I stopped caring about the parade of names and places that I had never heard of before. (That's on me, btw.) But it serves its purpose by being comprehensive, which it absolutely must be to make his point. Cole doesn't overlook any part of their history, laying it all out for the reader, and this completeness seals the deal.
This is an excellent education in Spartan history in particular and Greek history in general and should be read with interest by anyone curious about the topic. Excellent scholarship (with sources constantly declared), clear prose, and an unrelenting focus on the argument he is making ensures that this book achieves its purposes, not least of which is to provide the reader with an engaging and entertaining education.
Highly recommended.
The author is reacting to the right-wing fetishizing of Spartan training and Spartan domination in war--supposed, one must add. Because of modern mythologizing, Sparta has come to hold a strange position of honor among gun lovers and others on the far right, and Myke Cole does an amazing job of setting the record straight here. He does it methodically, chronicling the victories and defeats, the bribes offered and bribes taken, the errors and oversights and bungled campaigns over centuries, giving credit where credit is due but also brutally casting in sharp relief all of the deviations from the myth of Spartan invincibility and Spartan honor.
The argument is devastating and undeniable.
What I like is how Cole brings the reader along the whole time. Every example of Spartan fallibility is brought back to the main argument, showing how it doesn't match the myth. Everything is made explicit, and the thousandth (possible exaggeration) time he tells us how they should have scouted ahead and walked into an ambush or refused to innovate and got overrun or relied too much on hoplites and got beaten by archers, the reader knows that he has proven his point. Sure, the Spartans were good fighters, better trained than the typical fighters of the time, but as a culture they had huge blind spots that an innate conservatism made almost impossible to correct.
What I found most interesting to learn was how the Peers--the heart of Spartan society and army--dwindled in numbers over time because of a rigid economic system that squeezed families out if their wealth dropped below a certain point. Instead of broadening the base, instead of reforming the system, they allowed their greatest asset to dwindle. They would rather have fewer Peers every year than allow undeserving citizens to qualify.
They believed their own PR, and they choked on it. It was a slow moving tragedy.
The strength of this book--a minute recitation of historical events in context--becomes tedious, I'll admit. I enjoyed reading about their history to a point, but the last third got hard to read. I stopped caring about the parade of names and places that I had never heard of before. (That's on me, btw.) But it serves its purpose by being comprehensive, which it absolutely must be to make his point. Cole doesn't overlook any part of their history, laying it all out for the reader, and this completeness seals the deal.
This is an excellent education in Spartan history in particular and Greek history in general and should be read with interest by anyone curious about the topic. Excellent scholarship (with sources constantly declared), clear prose, and an unrelenting focus on the argument he is making ensures that this book achieves its purposes, not least of which is to provide the reader with an engaging and entertaining education.
Highly recommended.
January 17, 2022
4 spears out of 5, would definitely take it with me to the battle.
There is a reason why it's not 5/5 but first let's talk about good things.
1. I like the approach. It's very clear-headed and facts-oriented. I don't think we can ever get away from interpretation, and any interpretation is at least a bit biased (beside, just enumerating facts would be dull). But "The Bronze Lie" is clearly on the good side here with reasoning like "The claim says this but we can see in the source material that this and this happened, and then this, and then this. We could maybe dismissed it if it happened once, but this is a clear pattern showing that the claim is false".
2. There's a lot of hero worship and mythology around Spartans. I'm a bit of a victim to that as well, even though I myself try to convince people that there was nothing simple about ancient history, no clear good vs bad guys, no civilization vs barbarism, etc. "The Bronze Lie" shows that some of the claims about Spartans are just technically impossible, for others we have clear evidence that they were false, and yet others are a matter of perspective - like that Spartans were considered better simply because they had regular training while soldiers from other cities were amateurs, not because their training was somehow special.
3. Although it's not the main subject, the book describes also in detail how warfare in ancient Greece evolved from the archaic to the hellenistic period - changes in how the phalanx worked, what ships and siege machines were used, etc. It let put some puzzles in the right places in my mind. It also adds a cherry on the top of the cake by showing how Spartans were again and again on the receiving end of new technologies tested in battle.
4. And I think it deserves its own point that the author drills into the reader's head that when Leonidas yelled "Molon labe!" - "Come and take them!" - on the Xerxes' request to put down their arms... then Xerxes actually came and took them.
One negative thing I can say is that the book can be intimidating if you're not used to historical literature on the more academic side. The middle part of it is a detailed list of battles that involved Spartans - during the Peloponnesian War and the ones closely after. There are lots of names of generals and places, units of soldiers move across the whole Greek penisula back and forth and fight each other in ever-changing web of alliances and betrayals. We learn about all this period in Gree history, but it's difficult to keep track. I prefer the approach from the previous Myke Cole's book, "Legion vs Phalanx", where the author focused on just a few important battles. Here it might have not been possible to talk only about a few battles, but I think the balance could be shifted more in that direction, and this way the book would be more approachable for an average reader. Just an opinion.
So, yeah. Thank you for writing this, Myke. I really enjoyed it. Now I want to jab someone with a pointy stick.
There is a reason why it's not 5/5 but first let's talk about good things.
1. I like the approach. It's very clear-headed and facts-oriented. I don't think we can ever get away from interpretation, and any interpretation is at least a bit biased (beside, just enumerating facts would be dull). But "The Bronze Lie" is clearly on the good side here with reasoning like "The claim says this but we can see in the source material that this and this happened, and then this, and then this. We could maybe dismissed it if it happened once, but this is a clear pattern showing that the claim is false".
2. There's a lot of hero worship and mythology around Spartans. I'm a bit of a victim to that as well, even though I myself try to convince people that there was nothing simple about ancient history, no clear good vs bad guys, no civilization vs barbarism, etc. "The Bronze Lie" shows that some of the claims about Spartans are just technically impossible, for others we have clear evidence that they were false, and yet others are a matter of perspective - like that Spartans were considered better simply because they had regular training while soldiers from other cities were amateurs, not because their training was somehow special.
3. Although it's not the main subject, the book describes also in detail how warfare in ancient Greece evolved from the archaic to the hellenistic period - changes in how the phalanx worked, what ships and siege machines were used, etc. It let put some puzzles in the right places in my mind. It also adds a cherry on the top of the cake by showing how Spartans were again and again on the receiving end of new technologies tested in battle.
4. And I think it deserves its own point that the author drills into the reader's head that when Leonidas yelled "Molon labe!" - "Come and take them!" - on the Xerxes' request to put down their arms... then Xerxes actually came and took them.
One negative thing I can say is that the book can be intimidating if you're not used to historical literature on the more academic side. The middle part of it is a detailed list of battles that involved Spartans - during the Peloponnesian War and the ones closely after. There are lots of names of generals and places, units of soldiers move across the whole Greek penisula back and forth and fight each other in ever-changing web of alliances and betrayals. We learn about all this period in Gree history, but it's difficult to keep track. I prefer the approach from the previous Myke Cole's book, "Legion vs Phalanx", where the author focused on just a few important battles. Here it might have not been possible to talk only about a few battles, but I think the balance could be shifted more in that direction, and this way the book would be more approachable for an average reader. Just an opinion.
So, yeah. Thank you for writing this, Myke. I really enjoyed it. Now I want to jab someone with a pointy stick.
September 29, 2023
The problem with stating something obvious is that you have to be clever about it; the problem with stating something not obvious is that you have to hammer it home for the audience to get it. Myke Cole tries to have it both ways with this one and, in my opinion, fails.
To the serious historian, classicist, or military thinker, the idea that any nation, anywhere, at any time has been the martial ideal is nonsense. They were people, not terribly different in makeup from people today, and tended to behave equally foolishly and equally wisely to people today. Their cultures are going to be full of general rules and exceptions to those rules. The Spartans are no exception to this.
Cole is absolutely right that there has been a trend in Western popular-military thought to idealize the Spartans; I am pretty sure that none of the military units that use Spartan imagery, for instance, really want to go to collective messes, or be so blatantly homosexual that part of marriage involves cutting the wife's hair short so her husband knows what to do, or live on black soup. Instead they want to be attached to the image of men indifferent to hardship and conditioned to believe in their own victory. This is completely understandable, but as Cole points out, at some point it becomes silly.
What is equally silly is Cole's habit of not examining what, if anything, the Spartans got right, or where the kernel of the myth came from. The fact is, the Spartans were sufficiently well-regarded even in Athens that in the heyday of Greek culture around the Persian wars and the Pelopponesian War, outsiders sent their sons to Sparta to be educated; they did that because they saw value in the Spartan way. What did they see? Cole has no answers there, and that is the problem: He pulls back the curtain on the myth, but he does not reveal what was actually behind it the whole time.
To the serious historian, classicist, or military thinker, the idea that any nation, anywhere, at any time has been the martial ideal is nonsense. They were people, not terribly different in makeup from people today, and tended to behave equally foolishly and equally wisely to people today. Their cultures are going to be full of general rules and exceptions to those rules. The Spartans are no exception to this.
Cole is absolutely right that there has been a trend in Western popular-military thought to idealize the Spartans; I am pretty sure that none of the military units that use Spartan imagery, for instance, really want to go to collective messes, or be so blatantly homosexual that part of marriage involves cutting the wife's hair short so her husband knows what to do, or live on black soup. Instead they want to be attached to the image of men indifferent to hardship and conditioned to believe in their own victory. This is completely understandable, but as Cole points out, at some point it becomes silly.
What is equally silly is Cole's habit of not examining what, if anything, the Spartans got right, or where the kernel of the myth came from. The fact is, the Spartans were sufficiently well-regarded even in Athens that in the heyday of Greek culture around the Persian wars and the Pelopponesian War, outsiders sent their sons to Sparta to be educated; they did that because they saw value in the Spartan way. What did they see? Cole has no answers there, and that is the problem: He pulls back the curtain on the myth, but he does not reveal what was actually behind it the whole time.
October 24, 2021
A thoroughly researched historical account of Spartan military campaigns with a clear agenda. To the author's credit, he is clear from the first chapter (and the title) that he is intent on dispelling the commonly held misperceptions of Spartan culture and resolve. His unfolding in the last chapter of his motivation for the undertaking is clear and compelling.
That being said, it's just too much over the course of the book. The otherwise well-researched, dynamic, and compelling retelling of individual battles, campaigns, wars, and eras of Spartan dominance or decline is unceremoniously interrupted by snarkiness and opinion. There is just too much of the author telling you how to interpret the facts that were just presented. The fact that I would come to the same conclusion does not excuse the lack of tact.
I loved Legion and Phalanx. I support the author's effort to undermine the toxic military fetishism that is alive and well in our current culture. I enjoy the non-academic (buddy in a bar) storytelling and feel like the author was on to something with this approach in his last book, but he was disappointingly unsuccessful this time.
This book plays to what I would assume are some things the author opposes. This will fit right into social media echo chambers. Most people who support the author's position will like and promote this book, while his detractors will act expectedly reprehensible in their opposition.
If anything of our culture is able to survive the millennia, I can foresee some future historian justifiably approaching this work with the same skepticsm the author has for his primary sources (Herodotus, Plutarch, etc) and for the same reasons.
That being said, it's just too much over the course of the book. The otherwise well-researched, dynamic, and compelling retelling of individual battles, campaigns, wars, and eras of Spartan dominance or decline is unceremoniously interrupted by snarkiness and opinion. There is just too much of the author telling you how to interpret the facts that were just presented. The fact that I would come to the same conclusion does not excuse the lack of tact.
I loved Legion and Phalanx. I support the author's effort to undermine the toxic military fetishism that is alive and well in our current culture. I enjoy the non-academic (buddy in a bar) storytelling and feel like the author was on to something with this approach in his last book, but he was disappointingly unsuccessful this time.
This book plays to what I would assume are some things the author opposes. This will fit right into social media echo chambers. Most people who support the author's position will like and promote this book, while his detractors will act expectedly reprehensible in their opposition.
If anything of our culture is able to survive the millennia, I can foresee some future historian justifiably approaching this work with the same skepticsm the author has for his primary sources (Herodotus, Plutarch, etc) and for the same reasons.
March 20, 2023
This book would have rated five stars if not for two factors. First, the book is misnamed. It would be better titled “The Bronze Myth.” A lie is a counterfactual statement known to be false and told with intent to deceive. A myth is a possibly true statement which may be believed, and which a group believes about itself. It stimulates the group to aspire to a higher standard. The Spartans believed they were the best soldiers in Greece, and they strove to live up to the impossible standard of being super soldiers.
Second, although the history was good, the constant badmouthing of the Spartans was distracting. Almost every action taken by the Spartans was interpreted unfavorably. For instance, when the Spartans declined battle, it was because they were “terrified” or “frightened,” not because their leaders assessed the prospects of victory an decided they were iffy. Every other failing was cast in the least complimentary language possible.
Despite Cole’s constant stream of criticism, I came to decide that the Spartans were the best hoplites in Greece. The problem Sparta faced, in addition to controlling the helots with a dwindling population of Peers, was lack of flexibility in responding to the changing nature of warfare. They failed to make timely adaptations to the challenges of peltasts, cavalry, naval warfare, and siegecraft. If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Sparta was a society crippled by the necessity of controlling the helots, a lack of any intellectual culture, and a hidebound resistance to change.
Second, although the history was good, the constant badmouthing of the Spartans was distracting. Almost every action taken by the Spartans was interpreted unfavorably. For instance, when the Spartans declined battle, it was because they were “terrified” or “frightened,” not because their leaders assessed the prospects of victory an decided they were iffy. Every other failing was cast in the least complimentary language possible.
Despite Cole’s constant stream of criticism, I came to decide that the Spartans were the best hoplites in Greece. The problem Sparta faced, in addition to controlling the helots with a dwindling population of Peers, was lack of flexibility in responding to the changing nature of warfare. They failed to make timely adaptations to the challenges of peltasts, cavalry, naval warfare, and siegecraft. If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Sparta was a society crippled by the necessity of controlling the helots, a lack of any intellectual culture, and a hidebound resistance to change.
January 4, 2022
This is an excellent work of popular, serious history. The author's connection of the worshipful attitude to Spartan military prowess (based on an element of truth, but ignoring the real mixed record of Sparta's army) to the current idolization of the US military (particularly special forces units) is an approach not likely to be found in most academic histories, but is nonetheless a valid argument by the author, especially considering his own military experience. The book also raises, if indirectly, the question of what sort of "freedom" the Spartans were fighting to defend, as well as what "freedom" means to many who call themselves "patriots" today.
A final point-the author's critique of Snyder's "300" hit home with me. It is a visually stunning and rousing epic film but it gives, at best, a faulty portrayal of both the Spartans and their Persian enemies. On fact, Snyder's portrayal of Xerxes and his army put me off of what was otherwise an entertaining film. The Achaemenid Empire was, for its time, a far more tolerant entity than its Near Eastern predecessors, the Assyrians and Babylonians, as can be found by taking a look at how they ruled their subject peoples, including the Judeans. While much of Xerxes' army was of poor quality, the best troops (including the so-called Immortals, who were not demonic), were well-trained professionals.
A final point-the author's critique of Snyder's "300" hit home with me. It is a visually stunning and rousing epic film but it gives, at best, a faulty portrayal of both the Spartans and their Persian enemies. On fact, Snyder's portrayal of Xerxes and his army put me off of what was otherwise an entertaining film. The Achaemenid Empire was, for its time, a far more tolerant entity than its Near Eastern predecessors, the Assyrians and Babylonians, as can be found by taking a look at how they ruled their subject peoples, including the Judeans. While much of Xerxes' army was of poor quality, the best troops (including the so-called Immortals, who were not demonic), were well-trained professionals.
November 15, 2022
Ended picking this up after seeing a NYT article on it. The overall question that Myke Cole brought up was simple. Were the Spartans as superior as everyone thinks. the answer was "eh not really".
The Book breaks down each into three parts.
1.) The spartan Myth: How the world generally views the Spartans (300, Spartan Race, etc.)
2.) The reality of Spartans: The biggest chunk of the book. Looking at the documented spartan wars and the reality of soft power being used. The battles and tactics used. The historical figures of spartan history. And the culture/beliefs of the Spartans and if they actually followed it.
3.) The reality of the impact of the spartan myth: The reality of how the superiority of spartan warriors is used by far-right groups to promote thier ideals and view of masculinity. This is mostly in the west (I.E Golden Dawn in Greece, the Oathkeepers use of Thermopylae as a anti-immigrant message)
I thoroughly enjoyed the read. And I already picked up Myke's other book "Legion vs. Phalanx". I did appreciate that even though Myke gave the Spartans a very through look he was fair in his analysis. Even with the total battle record being 50 wins, 71 loses, and 5 ties he makes it known that they should be respected for lasting that long and having large respect from other cultures.
The Book breaks down each into three parts.
1.) The spartan Myth: How the world generally views the Spartans (300, Spartan Race, etc.)
2.) The reality of Spartans: The biggest chunk of the book. Looking at the documented spartan wars and the reality of soft power being used. The battles and tactics used. The historical figures of spartan history. And the culture/beliefs of the Spartans and if they actually followed it.
3.) The reality of the impact of the spartan myth: The reality of how the superiority of spartan warriors is used by far-right groups to promote thier ideals and view of masculinity. This is mostly in the west (I.E Golden Dawn in Greece, the Oathkeepers use of Thermopylae as a anti-immigrant message)
I thoroughly enjoyed the read. And I already picked up Myke's other book "Legion vs. Phalanx". I did appreciate that even though Myke gave the Spartans a very through look he was fair in his analysis. Even with the total battle record being 50 wins, 71 loses, and 5 ties he makes it known that they should be respected for lasting that long and having large respect from other cultures.
May 16, 2023
A "heretic" view about the Spartan war machine that was cultivated through the centuries. The author presents the Spartans' timeline from the Messinian wars (750 BC), the rivalry with Athens and the Peloponnesian war, the clash with Thebes and the final subjugation by the Romans. He argues that during this timeline the Spartans lost more battles than they won. He also attacks the popular belief that the Spartans were not interested in money and they would sacrifice themselves for their city.
He presents Sparta as an ancient apartheid state which I found to be an interesting analogy.
The book could definitely be shorter, since a lot of the arguments are rephrased/repeated. I run into a lot of new names and places, and even though it was good that made me look them up in Wikipedia, after a while I stopped doing it for everyone and picked the characters that stand out to me. I also felt that even though the author recognizes that the sources are limited, biased and they were produced centuries after the actual events described, he tried to used a modern mindset to interpret events 2500 years ago. I am afraid this is not a reliable way to do so, in my humble opinion.
Overall, I enjoyed this book and I learned a lot of the events that took place before or after the more studied Peloponnesian war. I definitely got a more skeptical approach to the Spartan supremacy.
He presents Sparta as an ancient apartheid state which I found to be an interesting analogy.
The book could definitely be shorter, since a lot of the arguments are rephrased/repeated. I run into a lot of new names and places, and even though it was good that made me look them up in Wikipedia, after a while I stopped doing it for everyone and picked the characters that stand out to me. I also felt that even though the author recognizes that the sources are limited, biased and they were produced centuries after the actual events described, he tried to used a modern mindset to interpret events 2500 years ago. I am afraid this is not a reliable way to do so, in my humble opinion.
Overall, I enjoyed this book and I learned a lot of the events that took place before or after the more studied Peloponnesian war. I definitely got a more skeptical approach to the Spartan supremacy.
November 19, 2021
A good book, providing a refutation of the “Spartan Myth” through a close study of the Greek city’s history. The author, military personality Myke Cole, presents the Spartan mythos as the “Bronze Lie,” arguing that the celebrated military city-state rarely practiced the unique discipline and piety for which it is famous. Cole gives a detailed chronological history of Sparta, parsing through the ancient texts and pointing out the many inconsistencies between the Spartan legend and actual events. He combines historiography with human behavioral observations to demonstrate how the myth of Sparta stands on shaky ground. I can’t find much fault with Cole’s analysis, but I do think he concentrates so much time discrediting the origin of the Spartan myth that he misses the more important fact - why such a myth is popular in the first place. Myths are about the society that believes in them, not the society they describe. To get after his frustration with groups that use the Spartan myth to justify their actions, Cole should have analyzed those current groups and actions, not the ancients City-state they purport to duplicate. Highly recommended for anyone interested in learning more about Ancient Sparta and the Ancient Greeks in general.
June 16, 2024
Overall, I generally liked this. It was well-researched, written cohesively, and clearly the author was extremely knowledgeable about military battle tactics.
However, I think it's glaringly obvious that he is not a historian (nor does he claim to be and is very upfront about this) because writing a book with an agenda is fine, but writing one with this much of an agenda feels like at some points he is not even seriously considering the other side of things.
I also disagree with the disregard for the religious aspect of ancient cultures. Although in modern days this may seem trivial, or even nonsensical, it clearly meant a great deal to the people themselves and is a useful way of gaining insight into what the Spartans feared, valued, and aspired for.
It's a shame because I know this book will never reach its target audience - far-right political groups who idealise the Spartans and fail to engage with the reality of their history.
As I am neither of those things, I liked the book, but it didn't really shake my world view.
However, I think it's glaringly obvious that he is not a historian (nor does he claim to be and is very upfront about this) because writing a book with an agenda is fine, but writing one with this much of an agenda feels like at some points he is not even seriously considering the other side of things.
I also disagree with the disregard for the religious aspect of ancient cultures. Although in modern days this may seem trivial, or even nonsensical, it clearly meant a great deal to the people themselves and is a useful way of gaining insight into what the Spartans feared, valued, and aspired for.
It's a shame because I know this book will never reach its target audience - far-right political groups who idealise the Spartans and fail to engage with the reality of their history.
As I am neither of those things, I liked the book, but it didn't really shake my world view.
May 2, 2023
A very thorough and detailed examination of the legend of Sparta, and a fairly convincing indictment of the use of its myth in modern day extremist ideologies. The tone of the book is conversational and thus incredibly accessible for someone like me whose only experience with Greek history concerns the half dozen pages I read in my middle school textbook. The author doesn’t pretend to be the final authority or a professional historian, but his enthusiasm is infectious. Cole also offers at least two if not more alternative historian opinions regarding points of Spartan history that aren’t unanimously agreed on and his thought process in agreeing with one over another. The result of all of the above is an interesting and fairly smooth read. I learned a lot! And I will never look at Corinthian helmet stickers and “moron labels” the same way.
December 24, 2023
A somewhat exhaustively thorough exploration of the "Myth of Spartan Warrior Supremacy," in which Cole follows the history of Sparta for every single battle attested in the historical record. In so doing he finds a considerably more mixed record of success at land warfare than the Spartan legend would suggest. It's not that the Spartans weren't a strong and fairly long-lived land power, but individual Spartiates do not appear to be noticeably better at fighting than other Greeks. They do not appear to be noticeably braver, and have plenty of instances of losing, retreating, or behaving ignobly, mixed in with their triumphs. The closely argued story is not always the breeziest read, so I'd recommend it more to someone with a pre-existing interest in the topic rather than to a casual reader.
September 2, 2025
This book provided a detailed overview of Spartan military history down to an entire list of battles in the post-Doric period. It attempts to prove that the Spartans were not actually great warriors who were better than any all the other Greek city states at military combat. Hence the name "The Bronze Lie". The problem with this is that the author includes skirmishes and irregular battles that are not part of the Spartan "Myth" of their hoplite's superiority. It then uses these battles to "Shatter" that myth. I found this argument moderately convincing. It did, however, provide a pretty good history of Sparta considering its use of a lot of original source material. Overall, this book can be a decent source of facts but on should beware of the heavy anti-Spartan bias.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews