What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Sparta
This introductory history of Sparta gives readers an accessible overview of the intense and brilliant history of the great Greek city state.
It covers the gradual expansion of Sparta's authority in the Peloponnese, her leadership of the Greeks against the Persians, the rivalry with Athens, her short period of complete supremacy in Greece until 371, and the collapse which followed down to the Roman conquest.
It covers the gradual expansion of Sparta's authority in the Peloponnese, her leadership of the Greeks against the Persians, the rivalry with Athens, her short period of complete supremacy in Greece until 371, and the collapse which followed down to the Roman conquest.
160 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1968
4 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
About the author
W.G. Forrest
4 booksWilliam George Grieve Forrest, known as George Forrest, was a British classicist and academic. From 1977 to 1992, he was Wykeham Professor of Ancient History at the University of Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 24, 2024
The flaws of this book are that it was written in 1968 and it is only 160 pages long. On the other hand, none of its basic contentions have been seriously contested (at least as far as I am aware). There still are large gaps in our knowledge of Spartan history, and I’m not sure what could have been added without padding it out with supposition and discursion. And I like the prose, which is witty and pithy:
“As a diplomat and organiser, Lysander was almost flawless – unless we count arrogance, dishonesty, unscrupulousness and brutality as flaws.”
The Spartans traced all their institutions to Lycurgus, but much about him is obscure. He may have been mythical, or he may have been an adaptor and not a real innovator, and he probably wasn’t as ancient as the Spartans thought. Sparta was also startlingly small: at its height, perhaps nine thousand citizens.
Forest makes clear his disdain for Spartan methods. There is a kind of fetish for Sparta amongst certain political types: I have not been immune to extolling a Spartan ethic myself. And yet so much of what they did was repulsive. What appalled and disgusted me most of all was the way they offered citizenship to some helots in exchange for fighting for them – and then massacred them all instead of honouring their obligations, because they feared how effective they had become.
Sparta’s sudden collapse was because Theban military tactics evolved, whereas the Spartans did not. Spartan allies were oppressed and half hearted, the Spartan citizenry were far too small in numbers to fill out an effective army, and the myth of Spartan invulnerability meant that defeat was swiftly followed by collapse. But I think Forest puts his finger on the real cause of Spartan failure in the unworkable nature of its political system:
“There is no such thing as a caste of “Equals” which can maintain itself when “Equality” becomes something from which outsiders are excluded, rather than something to which they can aspire.”
“As a diplomat and organiser, Lysander was almost flawless – unless we count arrogance, dishonesty, unscrupulousness and brutality as flaws.”
The Spartans traced all their institutions to Lycurgus, but much about him is obscure. He may have been mythical, or he may have been an adaptor and not a real innovator, and he probably wasn’t as ancient as the Spartans thought. Sparta was also startlingly small: at its height, perhaps nine thousand citizens.
Forest makes clear his disdain for Spartan methods. There is a kind of fetish for Sparta amongst certain political types: I have not been immune to extolling a Spartan ethic myself. And yet so much of what they did was repulsive. What appalled and disgusted me most of all was the way they offered citizenship to some helots in exchange for fighting for them – and then massacred them all instead of honouring their obligations, because they feared how effective they had become.
Sparta’s sudden collapse was because Theban military tactics evolved, whereas the Spartans did not. Spartan allies were oppressed and half hearted, the Spartan citizenry were far too small in numbers to fill out an effective army, and the myth of Spartan invulnerability meant that defeat was swiftly followed by collapse. But I think Forest puts his finger on the real cause of Spartan failure in the unworkable nature of its political system:
“There is no such thing as a caste of “Equals” which can maintain itself when “Equality” becomes something from which outsiders are excluded, rather than something to which they can aspire.”
March 26, 2018
Although this works really well to give a basic understanding of Spartan history over a broad period of time, this is all it really works for. Unfortunately, due to the size of the book (160 pages) and the breadth of time which it tries to cover, there is a significant lack of detail. As it was published in 1968, several of the points Forrest tries to make are outdated, but the general approach he takes is still very much accepted today and the facts stated are still true today. I think this book works, now at least, as a short read for those wanting to gain a basic understanding of a large portion of Spartan history.
November 30, 2007
This books is written more for an academic audience, rather than a general audience. I'd say go with Tuchman or Ambrose or McCullough for your first foray into history. That said, its pretty interesting if you like getting into detail of certain aspects of Spartan history. Forrest goes into detail about their governmental hierachy rather than focusing on battles and such. More of a political than military history.
January 3, 2011
Better for beginners than seasoned Spartan readers.
April 5, 2017
textbook material
November 22, 2014
Ancient speech tmr omg
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews