波斯战火：第一个世界帝国及其西征

by Tom Holland, 汤姆·霍兰, 于润生 (Translator)

《波斯战火》讲述了波希战争的前因后果以及全部经过，从精于权术的波斯帝王与热衷内斗的希腊城邦，到军事化变态管理的斯巴达勇士，以及标榜良治政府的雅典政客，书写了一部充满野性的磅礴史诗。书中最精彩之处在于还原了波希双方惊心动魄的激战场面。不论是公元前 490年，双方在马拉松平原相遇；还是斯巴达 300 勇士在温泉关隘口血战“万王之王”薛西斯；抑或萨拉米斯海战中，波斯 1200 支战舰被雅典人 300支战舰彻底击溃……每一个场面都被描绘得栩栩如生，仿佛读者置身于古代战场，透过盔甲亲眼看到的一样。

波希战争作为古典世界第一次横跨欧亚的国际性较量，拉开了数千年东西方文明冲突的序幕。《波斯战火》从一个全新视角再现这场古典世界的文明角斗，对于想要了解这段历史的读者来说，本书是最值得期待的入门读本。

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Middle East, Ancient, Greece, War

416 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2005

About the author

Tom Holland is an English historian and author. He has written many books, both fiction and non-fiction, on many subjects from vampires to history.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Holland was born near Oxford and brought up in the village of Broadchalke near Salisbury, England. He obtained a double first in English and Latin at Queens' College, Cambridge, and afterwards studied shortly for a PhD at Oxford, taking Lord Byron as his subject, before interrupting the post graduate studies and moving to London.

He has adapted Herodotus, Homer, Thucydides and Virgil for BBC Radio 4. His novels, including Attis and Deliver Us From Evil, mostly have a supernatural and horror element as well as being set in the past. He is also the author of three highly praised works of history, Rubicon, Persian Fire and Millennium.

He is on the committee of the Society of Authors and the Classical Association.

Reviews

[WarpDrive · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am going to give this book a rating that is the result of an average between two different ingredients:
- the fluent and compelling writing style, the exciting, vibrant and riveting historical narrative, the moments of epic poetry reminiscent of the best Homeric tradition, the startling immediacy with which the most stirring episodes of the confrontation between the Persian behemoth and the Greek city-states are brought to life by the author, they all unequivocally deserve, in my opinion, a 4-star rating, even a 5-star rating. The author is definitely a superb story-teller, managing to combine a reasonably high level of historical accuracy with a sparkling, entertaining, vivid narrative. A highly pleasurable reading, which I found very enjoyable; a real page-turner. The author is also very good at properly contextualizing the conflict between Greece and Persian, nicely describing the historical background.
- on the other hand, I must ruffle some feathers (considering the overall very high rating of this book: 4.16 at time of writing of this review) and say that the overall author's performance in this book is much better as a narrator and chronicler than as a proper historian. The lack of sufficient historical detail and analysis, the frequently uncritical trust in Herodotus as the almost exclusive source, the presence of some outdated and cringe-worthy generalizations, the overall lack of balance (sadly shared with much historiography, Western-inspired but also non-Western-sourced), resulting in the book not giving full justice to the remarkable, fascinating and brilliant Persian civilization of the Achaemenids, but, on the contrary, unfortunately providing a partially one-sided (pro-Greek) view of this momentous series of events, do not deserve, in my opinion, a rating higher than a 2 or 2.5-star.

As a result of the quite contrasting levels of personal satisfaction with regards to the two different aspects of the book listed above, I therefore decided to give it a 3-star rating.

I am now going to elaborate further why I was not really satisfied with the overall historical approach manifested by the author in this book:
- The first and foremost reason of my dissatisfaction lies in the author partial perpetuation of a tired, 19-th century narrative that contrasts freedom-loving, independent Greek city-states, harbingers of democratic ideals, with a despotic, over-stretched, corrupt and decadent Persian empire. A narrative that tends to artificially emphasize the harsh collision, and deep contrast, between Persia and the Classical Greek culture; furthermore, it is a narrative that tends (equally artificially) to stress a more or less direct link between such Greek civilization and the peculiarities and achievements of modern Western civilization (such as science, democracy etc.).
As the author states: “"There was much more at stake during the course of the Persian attempts to subdue the Greek mainland than the independence of Greece ... Much that made Greek civilization distinctive would have been aborted." "The legacy passed onto modern Europe would have been immeasurably impoverished". The author also explains that the achievements of Greek civilization, such as the philosophy of Plato, would not have existed if the Persians had not been expelled, and therefore Western Civilization would not have developed in the way it did.
Well, I strongly object to this approach. I am going, in the next sections of my review, to seriously question this whole narrative, which is simply (in my opinion) misguided and profoundly incorrect, and a narrative that has been challenged by many recent historians.
To be fair to the author, it must also be said that he does appreciate some aspects of the sophistication and culture of the Persian Empire; he also does try, to a larger extent than many other authors, to steer a more reasoned, middle course: we are not dealing here with the coarseness and crass over-simplification and one-sidedness so evident in popularizations such as the movie “300”. In comparative terms, the Persians are in this book given a fairer treatment than in many other similar popular history books, and this is commendable. The author also does get into some of the dark aspects of the Classical Greek Civilization; he does not portray it in exclusively positive terms.
- Another element of personal profound dissatisfaction with this book is when, in the introduction, the author compares the Persian Wars with the current conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and the West. The author asks the question "why do they hate us?" and describes it as a reason for embarking on the study of this particular period of Ancient history.
In my personal opinion nothing could be more dangerous, unhistorical, preposterous and simply wrong. Maybe the author, rather than trying to artificially connect events in ancient history to current geopolitical issues, should have tried to answer this question by looking at the much nearer past - like the illegal invasion of IRAQ conducted by the US without the approval of the UN, just as an example.
Moreover, the very definition of the "The East" and “the West” are definitions that no serious historian should ever use (unless heavily qualified and contextualized). The underlying implicit assumption that the the “East” and the “West” have maintained consistent and opposing identities over the past two thousand and five hundred years is just ridiculous. And, if we really want to play the author's game and talk about current Iran as a direct descendant of the Achaemenids, well I always wondered why this country has always attracted such unflinching hostility from parts of the West, while it is clear that the “friend” Saudi Arabia (home of the extreme Sunni Wahhabism, by the way) has been covertly financing international terrorism for quite some time, and that 15 out of the 19 Al-Qaeda 9/11 terrorists were of Saudi nationality. But this is a different story, I guess.
- Another element that I found quite irritating is when the author disingenuously conflates his overall historical narrative with some of the most partisan and prejudiced of the Greek views; for example, after almost grudgingly admitting that the upper classes in many Greek cities were actually pro-Persia, he uses terms such as “suckers of Oriental chic” to define them. Similarly, he defines the local Lydian/Ionian rulers as “quislings”, which is a negative judgment-laden word that a serious historian should not unnecessarily use. Similarly, the factions of cities such as Thebes that were Pro-Persia were defined as “traitorous”. Who used these terms ? Herodotus? The author himself? The Greeks opposed to Persian influence ? Is this the historians consensus ? Or is it the author's poetic license ?


Let me now expand a couple of points where I most strongly object to this overall narrative - a narrative that some sources are still perpetuating, including (not fully, but to some extent; see my qualifiers above) the author of this book:

CLAIM: THE ACHAEMENID AS A DESPOTIC, “BARBARIAN” EMPIRE, THAT WOULD HAVE SUPPRESSED/LIMITED THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF CLASSICAL GREEK CIVILIZATION:
- the Persian Empire was a remarkably tolerant (for the times), multinational, multi-ethnic empire that never tried to suppress local cultures, unless they were a threat to the stability of the state. In 493, just a few years before Salamis and Plataea, Xerses' general Mardonius had accepted democracy as system of government of the Greek cities in the Persian empire. The Persian Empire became the first to attempt to govern many different ethnic groups on the principle of equal responsibilities and rights for all people. For the Spartan conquered peoples ("helots"), Persian rule, by comparison, would have felt like the sweetest freedom.
- the Ionian Greek cities did not suffer economically or culturally from the Persian domination; actually, nearly the whole first generation of Greek philosophers were born in areas and cities dominated by Persia (Pythagoras, for example; also, Heraclites was a court philosopher of the Achaemenid empire)
- not many know that the Cyrus Cylinder was described as the world’s first charter of human rights, and it was translated into all six official U.N. languages. A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. The text of the cylinder expresses Cyrus’ respect for religious and cultural tolerance; and as result of his farsighted policies, Cyrus gained the overwhelming support of his subjects and cemented his empire into a coherent polity.
- The artificial opposition between the East and the West makes even less sense when related to Ancient Greece: it simply ignores the many, deep influences of the Eastern Civilizations on the development of the Greece civilization itself. Moreover, Ancient Greece was culturally and geographically closer to Ancient Persia than to “Western” Europe
- In general, it is at least a unwarranted generalization, if not a clear untruth, that economic and even intellectual development can only flourish under indigenous, democratic governments. It is disingenuous to conflate in this manner politics with intellectual development, culture and arts – the relationship exists, but it is far from linear and deterministic.
- I am afraid the author is really very restrictive in defining the Greek Civilization as the one only of the “Classical” period. It is not just about the period of Phidias. For example, the most famous of Greek mathematicians, Euclid, lived and flourished in Alexandria in Egypt around 300 BC, during the reign of Ptolemy I (hardly a democratic government, by the way). Another famous example is Archimedes. And Apollonius, who was 25 years younger than Archimedes. The last two, together with Euclid, define the period that is commonly ``golden age" of Greek mathematics. It was actually only when Greek mathematics merged with Egyptian and Persian/Babylonian mathematics that we have what is now commonly perceived as the legacy that ancient “Greek” mathematics left to subsequent civilizations.
-The Persian Empire represented a sophisticated civilization that, just as an example, provided:
1. A rational and efficient tax-collection system
2. Local self-government, with overall management provided by the system of satrapies
3. A complex system of roads still used today; the empire had an efficient and far-reaching network of roads and waystations, also supporting a complex postal system;
4. A uniform monetary system (based on a silver and gold coinage system), with standardized weights and measures
5. In the early part of the first millennium B.C., before Rome was even founded, in Persia a system of underground aqueducts called qanats were constructed
6. Darius funded the rebuild of the Jewish temple (the process started with Cyrus), supported Greek cults and the Elamite priesthood. He had also observed Egyptian religious rites and had built the temple for the God Amun.
7. Sound and farsighted administrative planning
8. Trade was extensive, and under the Achaemenids there was an efficient infrastructure that facilitated the exchange of commodities among the far reaches of the empire. Persian words for typical items of trade became prevalent in the East, and some of them even entered the English and other European languages
9. A sophisticated and universal legal system
10. The Achaemenids absorbed the many art forms and the cultural and religious traditions of several of the conquered peoples, and synthesized them into unique, beautiful forms and styles.




11. For example, the palace at Persepolis presents a feast of architectural brilliance, grandeur and magnificence, highlighted by beautiful reliefs presenting a cogent narrative. By the way, presence of Greek workmanship in the palace of Persepolis is evident, proving that the Empire was open to cultural influences from all subject peoples, and it did not hesitate to utilize, support and even patronize such heritages



12. And how hostile were the Persians towards rationalism? Well, as an example the research program of the Chaldaeans in Persian Babylonia followed what can be seen as a precursor of the scientific method.
13. Soon after the end of the hostilities with the Persian Empire, Sparta and especially Athens almost self-destroyed with the Peloponnesian War (431-404BC); let me venture here into highly speculative territory, but I might even be tempted to state that, had things gone differently, the peace brought by the resulting Persian domination might have created a more peaceful environment, more conducive to the higher intellectual pursuits that so distinguished the Ancient Greeks


CLAIM: THERE IS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE DEMOCRACY IN GREECE AND THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAS AND OTHER DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF MODERN WESTERN CIVILIZATION
- Athens was the world’s first "democracy", but it did not implement universal freedom, let alone universal suffrage, and it later dominated many surrounding city-states in a openly dictatorial fashion (Delian League). The Athenian attitude towards women was the most restrictive of any polity in Greece, forcing “respectable” women into a secluded existence similar to that imposed in modern times, for example, by the Taliban. We should not forget that the ideal polity of Plato was not a democratic government, but a peculiar, militaristic, hierarchical state clearly based on the Spartan model. We should also remember that the democratic government of Athens was an outlier in the history of Greece itself, not a common occurrence.
- The west did not reject absolutism out of hand when they defeated Xerxes, as even a cursory examination of history will reveal; Western Civilization only very recently, in overall historical terms, has commonly adopted genuine criteria of fully democratic government. Until WWI there were Empires in the very heart of Europe. Modern Europe started developing some of its peculiar features during periods where (like in the case of the Sun King) absolutism was the norm. Again, we need to separate the political aspects from other elements (cultural, economical etc.) of a civilization - there is a link between the two, but it is not linear nor simple nor deterministic.
- The direct, almost exclusive link between Ancient Greece and Modern Western European civilization has been questioned by many historians, who have highlighted that this link is not unique and not direct, and that the influences on the birth and development of Western European culture (and religion too: the influences of zoroastrianism on Judaism and Christianity are not negligible) are many and complex: the heritage of Jewish, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and of other ethnic and linguistic groups should not be forgotten nor underestimated. For example, it can be argued that the very idea of “democratic” government can also be seen, in its embryonic form, in the ancient governing assemblies of Germanic/Nordic societies, made up of the free people of the community. Similarly, the the East Slavic “veche” (like the one in Novgorod in Russia), is thought to have originated in tribal assemblies even predating the Rus state. Probably the oldest parliament (if we exclude the Athenian example) in Europe is the Althing, the national parliament of Iceland, founded in 930 - it is very difficult to see a direct thread connecting it to Ancient Athens.


To conclude, I want to make sure that I do not provide the wrong impression of an altogether negative opinion of this book, which after all is extremely well written, very enjoyable, and quite accurate from an historical perspective. A book which I did enjoy reading.

I also want to make it clear that, in highlighting the brilliance and sophistication of the Persian civilization, I am not discounting the amazing brilliance and originality of the Classical Greek civilization, which is one of those few peculiar periods in human history where a great explosion of collective genius takes place almost by magic, and to an astonishing degree (but again, we should not forget that Ancient Greece did not develop in a vacuum, and that it felt deep influences from the other Eastern Civilizations). Moreover, the epic courage and determination of the Greeks, wildly outnumbered by the Persian super-power, in fighting for their freedom and independence, are simply unforgettable. Thermopylae was an episode of pure heroism rarely matched in human history.


Nor am I negating the links between such civilization and modern Western Civilization – I am just saying that these links are not direct, nor linear, and most importantly not exclusive.

On the other hand, though, I think that it is very important that history is respected and taken seriously, that dangerous generalizations and all-too-tempting cheap comparisons with current times are avoided (especially in books of popular history, where the risks of misleading the unsophisticated reader into unwarranted conclusions are quite real). This is why I could not give this book any rating higher than a 3-star, regardless of how much I enjoyed reading it.
The 3-star reading is also due to the title itself, that I found slightly misleading – I was expecting much more focus and detail on the Persian empire than what I found in this book. I was really looking forward to a more thorough investigation of what could be termed the world's first superpower (excluding China, I guess), but in this I was left more than a bit disappointed, to be honest: how can such greatness and sophistication, in a book titled "The Persian Fire", not be given fair and full recognition?

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think that merits of this book need to be judged from two rather different perspectives. Seen from purely literary point of view, 'Persian Fire' is an excellent book. Holland's writing style is both rich and engaging. What's maybe even more important, he makes all those historical figures come alive. If the book was a pure work of fiction, I probably wouldn't be able to stop prizing Mr. Holland's amazing gift of story-telling.

The thing is though that this is not work of fiction, but retelling of historical events. What's more important, those events took place long, long time ago and we really don't have a lot of primary, or even secondary sources that tell us what exactly happened. Therein lies a huge problem - the simple fact is that we know very little about the conflict between Persia and Greek city-states. This means that as soon as we move beyond most basic facts, we move into realm of speculation. At the same time, the very secure tone of Tom Holland's prose, his unquestioning and definite presentation of events, thoughts, motivations of both individuals and entire nations can easily give the impression that the picture he paints in 'Persian Fire' is what really happened. This is a rather dangerous way to present historical events.

Nevertheless, even if the story weaved by Mr.Holland consists to a large degree of speculations and educated guesses, it is undeniable that he presents a rather compelling and plausible story. Based on that merit alone, I can heartily recommend 'Persian Fire' to anyone interested in the history of the period.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 5 out of 5]

”After all, no one is stupid enough to prefer war to peace; in peace sons bury their fathers and in war fathers bury their sons.”

Although most of us undoubtedly concur with this well-known statement by Herodotus, the primary source of the Greco-Persian war, the world is still riddled with war – and, let’s face it, hardly anything tickles our imagination as the battles and wars of yore. The senseless slaughter of men, the deprivations they have to bear on their marches from battlefield to battlefield, their anguish and the multiform suffering of the civilian population, they all seem to go for nothing when the destiny of civilizations hangs in the balance and the outcome of a military encounter appears to depend on the cunning and bravery of single leaders, or simply on luck and coincidence.

Tom Holland’s dramatized account of the epic war between the colossal Persian Empire and the tiny city states of Greece panders to the outlook I have just summarized in that he claims that European history would have taken an entirely different course, had the Greeks not held their ground against the invading forces from the East. I am not so sure that he is entirely right with this full-bodied claim because firstly, the Persian empire was not at all culturally homogenous, and I can see various opportunities for Greek culture to develop in the shade of a Persian satrapy as it continued to thrive after the defeat of Athens by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War or after Alexander took over. Apart from that, Attic democracy was only one among several political systems of the Greeks, a culture which was characterized by continual bickering and neighbourhood wars, or, to put it into a more elevated term: antagonism. I quite like the typical Greek attitude of seeing one’s own polis as second to none and trying to outshine one’s neighbours in sports, architecture, culture and influence, and I think this deep-rooted thinking would not have been extinguished by an emperor residing if far-away Susa or Persepolis. Another reason why I think that Holland is stretching a point here is that it is extremely dubious an enterprise to assume a direct line between the democracy of Athens and modern European democracy set up in national states – and presently being stifled by and by in a bureaucratic European Union. One should not forget that much that has come down to us from Greek culture would have been lost if it had not been for Muslim tradition.

So, after all, the assumption that the Persian War was a decisive turning point for the survival of Greek culture and as such highly important for European history has to be taken with an entire saltcellar – although it remains a beautiful and inspiring myth. Nevertheless, I enjoyed every single page of Tom Holland’s Persian Fire, which starts with a depiction of the Persian Empire and the city states of Athens and Sparta and then embarks us on a journey through the events of one of the most famous conflicts in antiquity. Holland’s style is vivid and highly engaging, even though, as I implied starkly opinionated, and he is more committed to relating history than to analyzing it. It is therefore recommendable to consider reading additional material on the subject if you want to get a more comprehensive and balanced view. Despite Holland’s dramatic style, which revels in the details of the various battles and invites you to look over the shoulders of single players, such as Themistocles, Leonidas and Dareios, the author uses sources carefully and tries to balance them against each other so that we will not find ourselves wading in the sloughs of a historical novel.

All in all, I would recommend this book to people who have a layman’s interest in history, who are not overly familiar with antiquity and are capable of enjoying a vivid, though not glaring account of the conflict between the Persian Empire and the Greek city states. These people might also like me to conclude with another, more uplifting, quotation from Herodotus:

”Some men give up their designs when they have almost reached the goal, while others, on the contrary, obtain a victory by exerting, at the last moment, more vigorous efforts than ever before.”

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Persian Fire' by Tom Holland is the latest book I have read in preparation for a trip around the Mediterranean Sea to visit ancient historical sites. This book was chosen over others following 'utterly shameless' self-promotion on Holland's and Dominic Sandbrook's podcast: The Rest is History (I highly recommend it). Through such brazenness, however, I have just read an enlightening and entertaining retelling of the Greco-Persian Wars. Holland initially delimits contextual chapters on the primary actors--Persia, Sparta, Athens--before chronologically and poetically examining this epoch defining conflict.

Persia rose and expanded westward during the 6th and 5th centuries BC under the primary tutelage of Cyrus the Great, Darius and Xerxes to become the largest empire ever at that time. Greek colonies in Ionia and the Black Sea were conquered. However, following an Ionian revolt supported by Athens and other free Greek city-states, Persia sought to completely vanquish the Greek world. Led by Sparta and Athens, a Greek coalition defeated Persia in four key battles: Marathon (490BC); Salamis (480); Plataea (479); and Mycale (479). In subsequent years, Persia was forced to withdraw its garrisons from Europe, and all Ionian city-states regained their independence. Greek civilisation was free once more.

Holland argues that the Greco-Persian Wars were a quasi-Manichaean conflict between Greek liberty and Persian tyranny, with liberty prevailing and laying the foundations for the contemporary West in philosophy, art, and science. This viewpoint, however, overlooks the scientific and philosophical advancements of the Ionian city-states under Persian rule and the innovative bureaucratic governance of Persia itself. Furthermore, Greek intellectual and artistic achievements continued to flourish even after Greece was later conquered by the tyrannical Macedonians. These historical intricacies somewhat undermine Holland's postulations. Nonetheless, this narrative framing adds suspense to this epic tale of history.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many versions told of the great wars between the small Greek city states and the mighty Persian empire.

This book is one of the best.





The Persian empire was ruled always and only by one man, who word was law (his law).



The separate Greek city states were always experimenting with different forms of government and at one point came up with the idea of democracy. ("Everyone has a vote unless you were a woman, child, slave, foreigner, or a person we didn't like" according to the Falco books.)



So rather than just launching straight into the actual wars it started with the history and cultures of all the peoples involved in a most entertaining way.



By the time you are ready to follow the Greeks into battle you know all about the Spartan and Athenian hoplite warriors covered in heavy armor - just like tanks!



I found this to be a most fascinating read again and again in both hard back print and audio.

Enjoy!

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a dramatizing of the Greco-Persian Wars, not the history of the Persian Empire. The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great in the sixth century B. C. and was a massive Empire even by todays viewpoint. He ruled the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and well beyond the Danube River in Europe. Holland provides a brief history of the Persian Empire and also of Sparta and Athens. This brief history allows someone unfamiliar with this timeframe to understand the events under discussion. The immediate cause of the War was a revolt in the Greek Cities on the Ionian coast in 499 B.C. The Greeks were rejecting Persian rule. The revolt was put down, but in 493 B.C. the Persians launched a punitive expedition which was defeated at Marathon in 490 B.C. Ten years later the Persians again launched an invasion this time by both land and sea. The Greeks deployed at Thermopylae and Artemisium in 480 B.C. The Athenians were led by Themistocles and the Spartans by Leonidas. The Persians were commanded by Darius. In 479 B.C., the battles for Plataea and Mykale were fought and the Persians were led by Xerxes.

Holland tells these famous ancient battles in a dramatic fashion. He attempts to bring history to life and make a more interesting read. Holland provides a mostly pro-Greek account of these battles. It would have been great if he had presented a neutral viewpoint and provided detailed information about both sides of the War. I am very familiar with the Greek viewpoint of these battles and would have liked to learn the Persian viewpoint. Otherwise, it was a fun way to learn a chronicle of the Greco-Persian War.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is about 15 hours long. Michael Page does a good job narrating the book. Page is a multi-award winning narrator and has been narrating audiobooks since 1984.

[Ali Khan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must say that this book was really disappointing for me as I was, judging from the title, excitedly expecting a historical narrative of the first Persian Empire. The title was, however, misleading, to say the least.

The book starts with a rather hasty overview of Persian empire's background and even with the clever and very interesting insertions of anecdotes, one cannot but feel that the pace is forced. Cyrus the Great gets a decent but short description and his two sons are mentioned in the passing in not very glorious terms. Darius reign again is pushed through (with excellent anecdotes and conjectural musings) and we are led to the times of Xerxes but to the king's reign. That ends the Persian Empire and thus far my short summary above would bravely rival the book in details.

Rest of the book, the main bulk of it, is primarily the history of Xerxes' was with the Greeks on land and sea FROM THE GREEK PERSPECTIVE. The Persians are, henceforth, mainly referred to as 'savages' (as they are called by the Greeks) and we are told only about the palatial war tents, luxuries and depletion of the ranks of the Persian side while Greeks cities, their individual legends, genealogies and ancestries, war machine and readiness, strategy, tactics and even minutes acts of bravery and valor are recorded in great details. Even when Xerxes leaves the area, the book is reluctant to move with him to the Persian lands and dwells on Greece even more so that Greek cities politics and rivalries are assiduously documented. I was not reading this book for that.

Furthermore, the book, while discussing the War, read so much like the the two installments of the "300" Movies. Especially, as in the second movie where the Persians are never shown to kill or even fight but just to get killed, drowned and burn, I noticed that this book also almost never depict the Persians killing anyone. The episode where Spartan king is defending the narrow pass with (a lot more than) 300 men for days on end, the active combat from dawn till dusk never mentions how many casualties were suffered by them while the deaths of the Greeks are told in gruesome details where the Persians, almost always, are shown to be pushed forward under a threat to be killed if returned.

These accounts might or might be true (at times minute by minute details of a raging battle that took place so long ago are hard to digest) but the way they are painted and presented were not to my poor and wanting taste. Apparently, the Persian sources of the War are not not that detailed and most of the accounts must have been borrowed from the contemporary or near-contemporary Greek sources, who are, incidentally, often depicted in the book as excelling each other in fabricating false ancestries and appropriating outlandish mythical and war-like qualities, therefore, it would have been prudent to treat the accounts with a little more caution. In the end, the book merely felt like a ruse to force Greek history on readers who were expecting Persian chronicles.

[Jonfaith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I Bought Persian Fire in Heathrow returning from Morocco. We had spent the night before with my wife's brother in Reading. Having returned from the dually (you know what I mean) arid Marrakesch, we were greeted with a bounty of Czech pilsners. The following morning I was half-pained and entirely groggy. I bought this upon entering the airport. It was only then that we discovered that our flight had changed gates and we literally dashed for 45 minutes until we arrived for our flight, dripping with exertion. I started to read as we underwent the 33 trials of boarding a plane bound for the United States.

Holland establishes these ancient matters with contemporary models without losing focus on the epoch and not falling prey to any jingoistic east/west dynamics. In fact the heroes of this portrait, if we are to accept such, should be the Taliban of our own day and age. The Spartans were tough, as were the Persians. Thomas Hobbes understood the stakes. So does Tom Holland.

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started the ‘Persian fire’ only as a temporary substitute to the remaining parts of the trilogy about Alexander the Great that were slow to arrive in the post. I took a skip and a jump from historical fiction to popular history and a few hundred years back in time to give me some background to the world of Alexander, and instead found myself completely immersed in a much larger scope.

The conflict between the Persians and the Greeks in the fifth century BC, was from a European point of view, one of the truly fateful moments in history, although perhaps less known. A point of crossroad, where two possible futures sharply diverged. Prompted by Holland I cannot help imagining an alternative future where Persia would conquer Greece. Would their single handedly ruling King of Kings allow the democracy in Athens to exist? Would Plato's ideas receive the space and attention that they did? would the Academy have ever existed? And if there was not such a school of thought, would Alexander be the leader that he was? And going on further in history, would Christianity have become what it was, or would it have been at all, if it wasn't for Platos spiritual grounds? The questions could only go on and the thought is absolutely bewildering.

But Holland's story doesn’t only concern the conflict or rather he doesn’t reach the point of conflict until somewhere in the second half of the book. He begins instead with a thorough introduction to all the conflicting parties starting with the origins of the Persian empire according to Herodotus. To summarize only the main thread of which there are many in Holland's narrative, a group of nomadic Aryan tribes calling themselves Parsua, settled on the ruins of another kingdom by the gulf. The place became known as Persia and was a vassal state to the empire of Media. When the king of Media, Astyages, had a dream of his daughter’s child taking away his power, he married her off to the most benign prince of Persia, believing him to be no threat ……
Prophetic dreams however, are not easily influenced so the grandson is born, and he becomes Cyrus the Great who obviously conquers Media, just as the dream has professed and establishes an empire, that after a series of imaginatively motivated power struggles, will finally emerge as a world power.
Then we are introduced to Sparta, with its deep roots in the ancient history of Trojan war, and its transition to a warrior city state. With its rules of governance, and the iron control over its citizens. And finally to Athens, with its winding road to democracy.

And then, in the year 490 BC, the Persian empire grew enough, to develop a taste for expansion to the west, to the land of Greek city states on its eastern frontier.
The first encounter between Persians and Greeks ends with the invading army turning back after being defeated by fewer, but better equipped Athenians, in the battle of Marathon. But Just a few years later, Xerxes, the Great King himself, launched a monumental assault on Greece bringing with him an unimaginable number of warriors as well as the whole of his imperial court, under his personal lead. Greeks at the time estimated the numbers to over a million, modern historians to perhaps 500000.

The outcome of the conflict is not exactly unknown so i won't be giving out any spoilers if i say that after years of fighting, Greeks have finally defeated the invaders. But how was it possible that a quarrelsome alliance of city states outnumbered by a power of magnitude managed to expel the invaders from its lands, nobody will ever know. Perhaps it can only be attributed to the offence of Nemesis, who is said to always bring down those who are guilty of overwhelming boastfulness, and the Great King, with his hubris, his ambition, and his unprecedented power certainly did apply.

Whatever was the reason, the defeat turned out to be final. Persians never came back to Greece. However, about 150 years later, tables will turn, and Alexander the Macedonian, a pupil of Aristotle and an adoptive son of Greece, will bring the war to Persian doorstep.

I loved this book, the light pen, the contemporary language, and a good dose of sense of humor. It took time, I took notes, enjoyed every second, and now I am looking forward to more by T Holland.

[Lewis Woolston · Rating 5 out of 5]

When it comes to ancient history i think you're either a Greece person or a Rome person, kind of like the Beatles vs Stones rivalry but for nerds. Personally i've always been a Rome guy.
I read this book in an attempt to broaden my knowledge of ancient Greece. It did all that and more.
Tom Holland is an excellent writer who makes the ancient world come alive. No dusty, dry recounting of facts here, the narrative bursts off the page with life and vigour.
Highly recommended to anyone interested in ancient Greece or even anyone who wants to know the real story behind the movie "300"

[William Gwynne]

Just finished with this non-fiction work about one of the most famous conflicts of all time. The Greco-Persian war. I thought this would be more focused on the rise of the Persian Empire and encompassing a deeper dive into Persian culture, so I got something a bit different from what I expected. This is more an overview of the causes of that war, what happened during it, and then about the immediate aftermath, discussing the political ramifications, especially regarding the relationship between the Greek States.. Very well written. Accessible, with an engaging style that is easy to understand and learn from.

It was not quite what I was looking for, but I would recommend this highly to those looking for an overview of the Greco=Persian war, especially if you only know the bare minimum about the period.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 Stars History the way it should be told. Written in the shadows of 9/11, Holland weaves the themes of East vs West back through time to the wars between the Greeks and the Persians.

Influence of Greece and Persia] spilling out across the millennia to the present day, can sometimes serve to complicate the division between East and West rather than to clarify it. Had the Athenians lost the Battle of Marathon, and suffered the obliteration of their city, for instance, then there would have been no Plato—and without Plato, and the colossal shadow he cast on all subsequent theologies, it is unlikely that there would have been an Islam to inspire bin Laden. Conversely, when President Bush speaks of “an axis of evil,” his vision of a world divided between rival forces of light and darkness is one that derives ultimately from Zoroaster, the ancient prophet of Iran. Although the defeat of Xerxes was certainly decisive in giving to the Greeks, and therefore to all Europeans, a sense of their own distinctiveness, the impact of Persia and Greece upon history cannot entirely be confined within rigid notions of East and West. Monotheism and the notion of a universal state, democracy and totalitarianism: all can trace their origins back to the period of the Persian Wars. Justifiably it has been described as the axis of world history.

And yet, by and large, how little it is read about today. Peter Green, whose wonderful book The Year of Salamis, published over thirty years ago, was the last full-length account written for a non-academic audience, marveled, in his customarily witty fashion, at the shortage of overviews of the subject.

Bearing in mind the fact that the Greek victory in the Persian Wars is routinely described as a fundamental turning point in European history (advocates of this view don’t quite argue that today, had things gone the other way, mosques and minarets would dominate Europe, but you can sense the unspoken thought in the air), this omission seems all the more inexplicable.

Perhaps Green has not been to Rotterdam or Malmo recently; and yet the fact that nowadays mosques and minarets are to be seen even in Athens, long the only EU capital without a Muslim place of worship, hardly detracts from the sense of perplexity he is expressing. If anything, it gives it added force.

Holland almost sounds like Bernard Cornwell when describing the advance of the Athenians against the Persian lines at Marathon:
“the Athenians crossed deeper into no man’s land, the first arrows began to hiss down upon them; then, raising the monstrous weight of their shields to protect their chests, the hoplites did at last begin to run. Simultaneously, as though the phalanx were “some ferocious cornered creature, stiffening its bristles as it turns to face its foe,” those in the front three ranks lowered and aimed their spears, in preparation for the coming collision. By now, with some 150 yards still to travel, a storm cloud of arrows and slingshot was breaking over them, thudding into their shields, bouncing off their helmets, striking the odd hoplite in the thigh or through the throat, but still the Athenians, braving the black rain, only quickened their pace. Those of the enemy directly in their path had already begun scrabbling to erect wicker defenses, as they realized, to their horror, that the wall of shields and iron-tipped spears, far from providing easy pickings for their bowmen, as they had at first imagined, was not going to be halted. A hundred yards, fifty, twenty, ten. Then, as the Athenians’ war cry, a terrifying ululation, rose even above the thundering of their feet upon the dry earth, the cacophony of clattering metal and the screams of the panic-stricken enemy, the phalanx crunched into the Persian lines.

The impact was devastating. The Athenians had honed their style of warfare in combat with other phalanxes, wooden shields smashing against wooden shields, iron spear tips clattering against breastplates of bronze. Now, though, in those first terrible seconds of collision, there was nothing but a pulverizing crash of metal into flesh and bone; then a rolling of the Athenian tide over men wearing, at most, quilted jerkins for protection, and armed, perhaps, with nothing more than bows or slings. The hoplites’ ash spears, rather than shivering, as invariably happened when one phalanx crashed into another, could instead stab and stab again, and those of the enemy who avoided their fearful jabbing might easily be crushed to death by the sheer weight of the advancing men of bronze. “

I was taught the origin of the modern marathon was the sacrificial run by Phillipedes from Marathon to Athens, announcing the victory. No one ever mentioned that he might have actually run to Sparta and back prior to that run up to and back from Marathon? His run might be mythical? And the real "marathon" was the return after the battle of the Athenian phalanx from Marathon to Athens?

The road to Athens may have been blocked to the Persians—but not the sea.
And what of the ships containing the cavalry that had embarked before the battle? The question haunted the Athenian high command. Even as they waded back past the corpses bobbing in the shallows and gazed across the plain in the direction of their city, the weary hoplites could see, glinting from the slope of Mount Pentelikon, the flashing of a brightly polished surface, deliberately angled to catch the rays of the morning sun. It was clearly a prearranged signal, and one that could only have been intended for the Persian fleet, somewhere out to sea. It was impossible to know its precise meaning—but every Athenian guessed at once that it spoke of treachery.

Consternation swept through the ranks. Twenty-six miles away, their families and homes still lay wholly undefended. Exhausted, sweat-soaked and blood-streaked, they had no choice but to head back at once for Athens “as fast as their legs could take them.” It was not yet ten in the morning when they left the battlefield; by late afternoon, in an astounding display of toughness and endurance, they had reached their city. In the nick of time, too—for soon afterward the first ships of the Persian fleet began to glide toward Phalerum. For a few hours they lay stationary beyond the harbor entrance; then, as the sun set at last on that long and fateful day, they raised anchor, swung around, and sailed eastward into the night. The threat of invasion was over.

The Greek spies sent to gather intel on Xerxes invasion forces are caught. But instead of executing them, the King of Kings shows off his vast armies. And then ensures their safe passage back to the Greek allies to sow fear:

And the reports they took with them, just as the Great King had intended they would be, dealt only in terrifying superlatives. What the spies had been shown was nothing less than a panorama of his world spanning dominions. At its heart the Great King himself and his crack corps of bodyguards: the thousand who attended him personally and bore golden apples on their spear butts, and then a further nine thousand, also hand-picked, with silver apples on their spears, a shock force of warriors known collectively as the “Immortals”—“for if one of them were killed or fell sick, a replacement would immediately step forward to fill the gap in the ranks.” Then elite contingents of cavalry, from Persia and various subject nations: Media, Bactria, India, the steppes of the Saka. Finally—for the Great King lacked heavy infantry fit to measure against the bronze-clad hoplites of Sparta or Athens—teeming brigades of spear fodder: exotically armed levies who might not, under normal circumstances, have appeared to a Greek observer as anything other than contemptible foes, but who, rolling forward in a great torrent of humanity, might be expected to sweep away any shield wall standing in their path. This, at any rate, was how it was reported back in Greece—for the three spies, reliant on their own dazzled estimates of the Great King’s troop numbers, and no doubt on records helpfully provided by their Persian minders, did indeed find themselves talking in terms of millions. One million, seven hundred thousand to be precise——and even that total took no account of the levies that the Great King was planning to recruit as he advanced through Thrace and into Greece.

Such figures, so colossal as to be virtually meaningless, were almost certainly a grotesque exaggeration. Most historians, forced to make an estimate, would put the army under Xerxes’ command closer to 250,000.

How "lucky" to have the great one visit your poor home:

Xerxes’ Europe-bound expedition, while it was certainly intended to demonstrate the folly of scorning the Great King’s favor, also had a more pacific intent. Remote satrapies, hitherto cruelly denied the royal presence, might now enjoy the supreme privilege of paying homage to the King of Kings in person. His subjects, as he rode through their towns, would line the roads, tossing flowers before the clattering hooves of the Nisaean horses, and prostrating themselves in the dust; attendants, following in their master’s wake, would gather up gifts and petitions; guards, lashing the moaning, sobbing crowds with whips, would ensure that they retained, even in their ecstasy, a sense of their proper place.

An Ionian Greek, Pythius, is in good standing with Xerxes asks for a favor. Not a great idea.

Now, greeting Xerxes, he had not only fed the Great King’s entire army, but vowed to bankroll it. Xerxes, breezily dismissing this offer, had nevertheless been charmed. All that winter, Pythius and his five sons stood high in the royal favor. Pythius himself had been lavished with gifts; his sons all confirmed in prominent military posts. Then, with the coming of spring to Sardis, and the time at last for Xerxes and his task force to depart upon their great enterprise, there was sudden consternation. An eclipse, blotting out the sun, had cast the world into shadow. Although the Magi were quick to reassure their anxious master that this portended the ruin not of his expedition but of the rebel Greeks, Sardis remained racked by a sense of foreboding. The aged Pythius, as “alarmed by the sign from the heavens” as anyone, even went so far as to beg the Great King for his eldest son to be spared from going to Greece. A terrible, a fatal mistake. At a time when Xerxes himself was preparing to ride into danger with all his “sons, and brothers, and relatives, and friends," no more scandalous a request could possibly have been imagined, While the Great King, mingling mercy with the stern dictates of justice, did somehow bring himself to spare his former favorite’s life, it was clearly out of the question to pardon the Lydian’s impertinence altogether.

Pythius’ precious eldest son was duly apprehended, killed and sawn in two. Then, with the army massing to march northward for the Hellespont, the two halves of the corpse were exhibited on either side of the Sardis highway. “And the army, everyone in it channeled between the two halves of the young man’s body, embarked on its advance.”!

[Abtin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thoroughly disappointing. Based on the title and cover, I hoped that the author would give the Persians a fair shake, and it started well. Sadly, it quickly fell into the old pro-Greek narratives. I would highly recommend reading Warp Drives’ review of this book. He has a terrific overview of why the Persian empire deserves more credit than it gets.

The Persians had a proper multi-cultural empire where dozens of languages and people were united under one banner. The Greeks were a couple of city-states on a rocky outcrop that spent all their time fighting with one another. The greatest cities in the world including Babylon were in the Persian empire. The Greeks had the Spartans who prided themselves on the fact that every year their highly trained warriors would sneak into the slave settlements and slaughter a few slaves during the night without getting caught—yay? Or how about the Athenians, where it was assumed that if a woman was seen in public that she was a prostitute—Hoorah?

I think the pro-Greek sentiment is due to the exclusively Greek “original” source material used in this book. The more interesting take away from reading the book is the realization that we think the Persian wars were important because the Greeks wrote about it a lot. It makes sense when you think about a super-power taking on some second-world nuisance. I mean you don’t see many books written by Americans about Grenada either.

In the end, the Persians routed the Greeks. They were slightly delayed at Thermopylae where they destroyed 300 Spartans (plus the 3000 slaves the Spartans forced to fight for them, although you never hear about the slaves), sacked and burned Athens twice, got bored, and went home.

[Kristy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Persian Fire looks at much more than just the rise of the Persian empire. It focuses heavily on the Greeks as well and while Holland explains his reasoning for this and it made sense, I do wish more time could have been spent examining the Persians. This feels more like a historical look at the Persian Wars through the eyes of the Greeks and I was hoping for a more detailed account of the Persians. However it was still well-written and informative.

[Alexandru · Rating 2 out of 5]

Persian Fire was a fairly disappointing book. Tom Holland really wants to be the most non-academic history book writer. He tries to write his books as a novel to appeal to a wider audience and uses flowery language as if the text is an ancient chronicle.

For some people this might work but it annoyed the living daylights out of me. I just want to read a good history book not a pretend novel.

Anyway, the book covers the background and foundation of the three main states in the story: Persia, Athens and Sparta and then covers the Ionian Revolt and the Greco-Persian wars with the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea.

The wars are told almost entirely from the Greek perspective despite the name Persian Fire. I was expecting more of a Persian perspective. But most of the book the Persians are referred to as 'barbarians' to underline the Greek point of view. Also, there are no maps of the battles which is a major minus. I had to go online and watch some videos to better understand the army placements.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written, quite readable account of the war(s) between Persia and some of the Greek poleis from the Lydian revolt through the Greek victory at Plataea. The battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea are covered in detail. So, too, are the cultures of Sparta, Athens and the Persian elites.

Dealing with this period is difficult, sources being various and contradictory, often much later than the events described. In order to provide a clean narrative flow Holland provides his considered reconstruction of events, relegating the controversies to notes.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 5 out of 5]

An enjoyable, well-written and well-researched history of Persia’s war with the Greeks. Holland clearly describes the events of the time period from both sides, but with a decided focus on the Persians. Holland gives us plenty of background, beginning with the Assyrian empire to the rise of Persia, and why Persia viewed Sparta and Athens as such dangerous threats.

Holland gives us plenty of background, beginning with the time when Athens was ruled by a rapid succession of quarreling tyrants (mobsters, basically), until one of them comes up with the idea of a democracy: out of pure self-interest. In the meantime, Sparta develops a bizarrely militaristic state of super-soldiers. As all this is going on, Cyrus of Persia conquers Babylon, Media, Lydia and expands throughout the Middle East before deciding to try the same thing with Europe.

Holland brings all the various characters to life; even Xerxes and Darius come off as sympathetic and understandable, even though older accounts tend to treat them as sadistic megalomanical tyrants. Holland describes their motives and beliefs and what led them to war against the Greeks. The Greeks are also given good treatment, especially the unprincipled Themistocles, who built the Athenian navy and probably saved Greece but whose priority was always increasing his own power; Themistocles had advised the Persians to blockade Salamis and thus forced Greece to unify in order to defeat Persia. Holland gives us good portraits of other characters, like Leonidas and his 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, a sacrifice that bought Athens more time, the destruction of the Acropolis, Xerxes’ burning of Athens, the Greek triumph over a vastly superior Persian fleet at Salamis, and the battle of Plataea, where Sparta crushed the elite of Persia’s army.

On page 168, Holland writes that "Argive ambassadors had crossed Sardis and informed the startled Persians that they were in fact descendent--roll of drums--from an ancient King of Argos." And he also calls posting stations "the original information superhighway." This kind of thing is annoying, but is far less present in this book than in Holland's Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic, which was still quite enjoyable in any case.

The title may lead some reviewers to think the book is told from the perspective of Persia, which it is, but to a lesser degree than that of Greece. The sleek, dramatic narrative and Holland’s engaging command of the subject matter, make Persian Fire quite enjoyable.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Superb pop-history. Despite the title, still a bit graeco-centric; understandable, given the sources available. Certainly more sympathetic to the Persians than any number of recent histories, though in the end it does toe the "Western civilization was nearly stillborn" line.

At any rate, a nice overview written in a flowing narrative style (and he even clues you in when he's making assumptions or arguments based on fragmentary evidence!). not bad for seven bucks.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not sure how a historian can write history as well as a great fiction writer can weave a beautiful and engaging tale, but Holland achieves it with aplomb.

Amazing stuff.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a bit like fast food, specifically Chick-fil-A:
It was reasonably enjoyable but a poor approximation of what it was supposed to be, is quite bad for you, leaves you feeling faintly sick after finishing it, tells lies about sodomy, and has a healthy serving of bigotry with it.

A bit of a laboured metaphor sure. I thought that the writing about battles was very compelling, but beyond that it wasn't a particularly thought-provoking read. Holland did the new translation of Herodotus's Histories, and he hasn't made any attempts to use the intervening 2-and-a-half-thousand years to update the narrative. At points I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was being tongue in cheek by referring to the 'barbarian' Persian Empire. However, the whole book is infected with a boring clash of civilisations narrative, which is heralded by pointless comparisons to contemporary Islamists in the introduction.

There was maybe an inadequate attempt to add some nuance at the end which amounted to recounting the Greek realisation that the Persians were not in fact barbarians, but really just too girly with their fancy trousers and food that went beyond blood soup. Holland doesn't attempt to provide any sort of challenge to the Greek narrative, because he fundamentally agrees with it and replicates its xenophobic logic with his own apologia for empire today. I'm curious to read his (apparently) stridently orientalist history of Islam In the Shadow of the Sword, if only to go further down this grotesque rabbithole.

Popular history doesn't have to be violently right-wing to the point of tedium, and British popular historians should learn that.

[Nate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tom Holland’s books are great.
He really brings a sense of drama and narrative to a historical topic that could make for pretty dry reading from another author.
After reading this I rewatched the movie 300. This book covers a lot more ground both geographically and chronologically than the movie, which takes a lot of liberties with the story in the name of great storytelling. I wonder though, how much of this stuff we’re 💯 percent sure of factually, it was 2500 years ago.
The one really big takeaway that was a huge departure from historical accounts that the film takes is how fucking weird the Spartans were. They tried to make the Spartans look like they had these Victorian ideals about family and children but they forced young boys and girls into prostitution. I guess it wouldn’t have played well in a modern movie but they tried to make the Persians look like they were the weird deviants.

This was great though. I’ve read a lot about Rome in the fall of the republic/rise of the Cesars, but this is the first book I’ve read about Ancient Greece. I think I need something that’s an overview from the beginning up to Alexander.

[Arun Divakar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes at the most drowsy of moments spent on musing about history, I see the whole picture as a rise and fall of global powers. A number of races, faiths and faces have all struggled for domination over the planet and when looked at from the longer term, every single one of them have failed. Knowing that it is futile, why do men and women struggle for this momentary blaze of glory ? Swords, spears, shields, horses, elephants, men, muskets, bayonets and rifles…no matter what the weapons, the empires built on them never survive for too long. Look back for a moment at these : The Persians, The Greeks, The Romans, The Egyptians, France, Holland, Russia, England, Germany, the USA. How many of them are global super powers now ? Forget being super powers, a nation like Greece was washed out and went bankrupt. A few centuries ago this nation was the crown jewel of classical civilization and a few months ago it was struggling to stay afloat.

Reading history against this background makes everything look rather bleak and yet we go on hoping that there just might be a chance for a light at the end of the tunnel. The Persians were the pioneers in one aspect : a concept that a war and subjugation of other lands in the name of a god was morally justified. Centuries later this one notion they gave birth to still survives and even thrives in forms that are too monstrous to comprehend.

This book is supposed to be a work of non-fiction (but in reality it reads faster than fiction !) that tells us about the rise of Persia, the skirmishes for the control of Greece and finally how Greece (Athens & Sparta notably) routed the Persians and retained their independence. These were landmark battles that led to the rise of a Western civilization and hence responsible for the shape our present world is in today. The rise of Persian emperors : Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes forms the first half of the story and makes for rather fascinating reading. In a sequence of bloody battles, subterfuges, espionage and blind luck these three men gave rise to the biggest empire of the ancient world. There was one other stand-out factor that made Persia a true winner in the world of then. They were masters of information and espionage and through the innovative use of their information channels, the emperor was never too far away from the action. The Persian treasuries were filled to overflowing and this made their military might all the more overwhelming. Against this was pitted the tiny states of Greece who by no means were united. The Spartans with their supremely effective soldiers and Athens with its wish to be prominent in the Greek scene both stood against Persia’s ambitions beyond the Aegean. There were others in the fray too but the alliances they all maintained were all flimsy, treacherous and bound to fail.

And so were born the legends : Of Leonidas and his 300 men who defied a million Persians at the pass of Thermopylae and of the Battle of Salamis which proved to be an unbelievable victory for the Greeks. Tom Holland sets a scorching pace for the book and makes sure he follows it up fully during the course of the book. The battles : Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis are captured with all their blood, gore and brutality as in military fiction. The Spartans – while they certainly were nothing like Gerard Butler and his men were still badass !

I did happen to come across a few reviews who pointed out historical inaccuracies here and there but for a layman like me this book left me with a level of understanding of the Greco-Persian wars that I was lacking before. Recommended !

[Jimmacc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. Buildup of the major players, detailing the Persian, Athenian, and Spartan societies. Well written, and very enlightening.

[Sean DeLauder · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of this book would lead a reader (this reader, anyway) to believe the focus to be the Achaemenid Empire and it's leading men, Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, leading up to and through the clash between Persia and Greece. That assertion is an error of scope, as Holland looks not only at the rise of Persia, but that of all the major players (e.g., Persia, Sparta, Athens, etc.) in characteristic thrifty but efficient detail, which was much more than I expected--so much the better.

Persian Fire corroborated much of the information about the Achaemenid Empire Gore Vidal provided in Creation. This duplication, coupled with the abundance of sources (though largely 20th century), seems an indication that the information is well established, it's simply overlooked as part of a grade school education of the period. Notably, the most prominent Greeks as fractious, greedy, and overconfident; not that that isn't characteristic of most peoples, only that it contrasts with the cursory lay education most receive on the topic. The bulk of Greek history consists of Spartans Strong (like USA!); Athenians Philosophical (like founding fathers!); Doric, Ionian, and Corinthian columns; the Parthenon (made of columns!); Zeus; the like, et al.

The most enjoyable aspect of an education is when an important historical event one has accepted (suspected, perhaps, but never had the sense or resources to investigate), has in truth been falsely represented or unduly oversimplified, and is at last exposed as a fallacy.

My favorite example of a shattered illusion is the unprecedented beginning of the West's cherished Democracy and the halcyon Greek period that bore it. In Holland's work, Democracy is presented less as a philosophical belief that the common man should have some say in the form of their government rather than the aristocracy, or that positions of authority ought not be exclusive to inheritance, all of which arose as a consequence of Greek philosophers gathering to determine the most equitable method of rule. Instead, it came about as a means for one aristocratic family to wrest power away from another at the cost of the inability for anyone to maintain absolute power. It was a brilliant and elaborate stroke, but invariably one brought about by, as Holland implies, the spite of an out-of-favor aristocratic family.

Naturally, the citizens of Athens enthusiastically supported the proposal that they would be allowed to help decide the rules of their society, they rebelled in the streets when Cleisthenes, who gave the power to vote on laws to the people, was chased from the city by a "tyrant" (a form of monarch, though rarely of the disposition that lends to the modern definition of tyranny), who in turn found themselves faced with the power of the mob.

Similar anecdotes are strung through Holland's works, creating a tapestry of interwoven events from which he often extrapolates the thoughts, feelings, and ambitions of the characters in these histories. It is a style that may seem somewhat dishonest without supporting text, and is probably the point where he takes the greatest creative license, but at the same time makes the historical figures more than empty-eyed marble busts or rigid profiles on coins, is extremely engaging, and makes sense in the context provided.

I believe Holland is in the same league as Pulitzer Prize Winner David McCullough in terms of narrative skill, with an ability to draw a reader into a historical period through the details they choose to include and elaborate upon. The difference between the two, thus far, is McCullough (an American author) tends to focus on American (i.e., USA) history, while Holland (an English author) spends his time on ancient civilizations.

Holland began his his writing career as an author of supernatural fiction. He has since turned his English acumen toward bringing history to vibrant life, and he's clearly made the right move for his career, and, more importantly, my enlightenment.

I still have two more Holland historical works to read, but I'm enthused by the prospect that, according to his current pace of publication, we should be getting a new Holland work in the next year. I look forward to continuing the process of adulthood re-education.

[Samuel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I paid the salvation army 2 dollars for this book and when I gave the lady at the counter the money I told her not to spend it all at once

[Stoyan Stoyanov · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a truly remarkable achievement. On one hand, it is genuine, unadulterated history... no fiction about it. On the other hand, though, Tom Holland's prose is remarkably vivid, more readable and exciting than many books of fiction I've read.

This is the history of the clash between Greece and Persia (remember the movie "The 300"?). What makes this book really great is the fact that Holland provides a panoramic view of almost 3 centuries of rather obscure ancient history. He tells the story from both sides. Almost half the book is devoted to the rise of the Persian Empire and believe you me, it makes for an incredibly fascinating read. Who knew the court at Persepolis was as full of intrigue and behind-the-scenes struggles and betrayals as the proverbial court at Constantinople over 8 centuries later would be reputed to be? The details about the religion of the Persian kings and the administration of the Empire are presented effortlessly. I will never forget now who the Medes were... of where Lydia was.

On to the part of the book dealing with Athens and Sparta. I already knew most of the details, but Holland makes this the best part of the book. Of special interest is the story of how Athens first experimented with a democratic system of government. And then, of course, there are the chapters devoted to the actual battles -- Marathon, Thermopilae, Salamis and Platea -- told as vividly as if the author was there on the battlefield.

This is a truly amazing read and highly recommended. Yes, I can see why the Greeks regarded history as one of the arts and gave its own Muse.

[Song · Rating 5 out of 5]

汤姆·霍兰挚爱希罗多德，在这本书里，他自己变身希罗多德，用精彩的细节和忠于古典历史的叙事，没错，历史学的核心永远都是叙事，把这场2500年前的战争写得活灵活现。

有人耻笑汤姆·霍兰的历史写法是“希罗多德加还珠格格”，这样的评论，倒只是暴露了评论者自己的无知，自取其辱罢了。

为什么要在这个盛夏读一场2500年前的战争？原因很简单：帝国和自由的斗争从未停歇，于今而愈演愈烈。历史之声，一直在人们耳旁回荡。

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tom Holland told the story as presented by ancient sources in an engaging in interesting way. His coverage of ancient Greek and especially Persian history was informative but obviously limited based on the lack of primary sources for each topic.
As time progresses in the book, issues continue to mount as the entirety of the Greco-Persian war is covered using essentially just Greek sources as truth. The author is nearly never critical of a source. Issues of who wrote the source, when, their motivations and other biases are never raised. Considering this is an book on ancient history it is concerning and greatly degrades from it's value.
Throughout the book the author also writes regularly about the effeminate, oriental barbarians in what I presume is the perspective of the Greeks from that time. This language is never critically inspected and it never comes into contact with equal views from Persian sources. As a result it comes off as a bias that the author is actually believing some of what he is saying related to the exotic oriental barbarians etc.
This comes to the last point, the book struggles to make a deep argument related to the topic. The author regularly discusses issues of East vs West, the threat of all of western civilization being snuffed out if the war were lost and other preposterous views that push modern or pre-modern views onto ancient history. This view is then mixed with more pragmatic views that well after they won the war the Greeks came to really push aside values they claimed to hold dear and then we're conquered by the Macedonians so maybe that's just how things are. These divergent narratives are unbalanced and are never argued fully. What does Tom believe was occurring? A failed border war in the ancient world? Or a Titanic battle that had it been lost all of the west would have been destroyed in the cradle dooming even the birth of Christ himself? No real stand is taken, the East vs West orientalist narrative is nonsense and poorly argued. What the world claims as Western values developed even after multiple occupations of ancient Greece, the idea that a Persian victory would have doomed this time skipping notion of values is crazy. No one knows what that victory would have been. Maybe a one year victory followed by insurrection and rebellion that was too far to be quelled who knows.
I hope to enjoy his writing on the medieval period more since years ago I had enjoyed Forge of Christendom.

In the end the book lacks historical value and comes off as almost popular history on the topic rather than real critical analysis.

[Faustibooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very good book about the Greco-Persian Wars. When the great and powerful Persian Empire invaded Greece, whose many city-states had no choice but to cooperate to survive. Holland is an amazing writer and it shows in this book too, the epic struggle of the Greeks and their fight for freedom is told in a very exciting and engaging manner. The first couple of chapters were alright, but I really enjoyed Holland’s epic retelling of the Battle of Marathon, the Spartan sacrifice at Thermopylae or the great battle at Salamis. The discussions and infighting between the Greeks and all the political intrigue and interests were also very entertainingly written about. Especially the lives and fates of colossal figures such as Miltiades, Themistocles or Leonidas were fascinating.

The only “problem” I have with this book, if I can even call it that, is what I usually “dislike” a bit about Holland’s books: the fact that they are written for the general reader and leave out information. I feel this book, like others from him, leave me wanting more information about the battles or the events. This is fine of course, since this is Holland’s intention and it is great that a topic which is so important in history to be more accessible to the average person. All in all, it was very entertaining, and I could still say that I learned a lot even though I would’ve like to have known more! A great book deserving of at least four stars and a place on my favourites shelf!

[Nadienne Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a most excellent read. I think I finally got my Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes chronology in order, as well.

Want to know how, in less than 200 years, we went from Persia invading Greece to Greece (*cough* Macedonia *cough*) invading Persia? This is the book for you. Far from just being an "overly complex" telling of the movie "300," this book goes in depth into setting the stage. We learn of the origins of Persia and follow the road that brought it to dominance. We also learn of the origins of Sparta and Athens, and how both of those cities came to be preeminent amongst the various Greek City-States. And I must say that I've always been more of a fan of Sparta than of Athens. The "western world" may take its cue from Athenian democracy, but I truly feel that the collectivist nature of Sparta has more to be admired (minus the eugenics, of course). I also think that the unified multi-ethnic, melting pot that Persia became is more of a model for civilization than that of fractious, ever-conflicting Greece. In Sparta, one sees Spartans, but in Babylon, one will see Egyptians, Thracians, Persians, Phoenicians, etc. all living together.

Read how the victory of the Greeks led to the creation of Athenian Empire which eventually had to be put down by Sparta, which was then in turn put down by other Greeks until Phillip II came to town.