Thucydides: The Reinvention of History

by Donald Kagan

The bestselling author of The Peloponnesian War examines Thucydides as the first modern historian.

Donald Kagan's magisterial history of the Peloponnesian War is recognized as a landmark of classical scholarship. Now, Kagan-one of the most respected classical historians in the world-turns his attention from one of the greatest conflicts in history to the author who so magnificently chronicled Thucydides, the first truly modern historian. This study offers readers a remarkable opportunity to experience one great historian engaging another across the centuries, in a work that is at once an engrossing voyage of discovery, a moving tribute, and a revelatory meditation on the practice of history and its value in human affairs.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Nonfiction, Classics, Biography, Greece, Politics

257 pages, Paperback

First published October 29, 2009

About the author

Donald Kagan (May 1, 1932 – August 6, 2021) was a Lithuanian-born American historian and classicist at Yale University specializing in ancient Greece. He formerly taught in the Department of History at Cornell University. Kagan was considered among the foremost American scholars of Greek history and is notable for his four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War.

Reviews

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"I doubt seriously whether a man can think with full wisdom and with deep convictions regarding certain of the basic international issues today who has not at least reviewed in his mind the period of the Peloponnesian War and the Fall of Athens." - George C Marshall, 1947



"And, perhaps, my account will seem less pleasing to those who hear it because of its lack of fabulous tales, but if it be judged useful by those who seek an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be satisfied." - Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

Donald Kagan, one of the preeminent Classical scholars of the last 50 years, who has spent most of his professional career writing and researching the Peloponnesian War has written a tight book exploring Thucydides as a historian, philosopher, and comparing the myth of the Man/Historian/Philosopher against the reality. Kagan investigates Thucydides motives, revisions to history, and opinions. It is an interesting biography of a historian combined with a light textual analysis of his book. It is a historical love note, with just a dash of realism and hint of criticism.

It is also, put in today's context, not a little bit ironic. Each time I've read about the Peloponnesian War I finish the book or article thinking of how Thucydides was an early master of real politick. I think about how Athens invading Sicily strangely parallels the US preemptively invading Iraq, waging war against the "enemies of democracy" and the "axis of evil". I was going to make some snarky comment about how hard it must be for Donald Kagan, this historian of the brilliant and pragmatic historian/philosopher/general Thucydides, to share a name with Robert Kagan one of the neocons responsible for providing intellectual cover for the last couple decades of American Imperialism. Imagine my surprise to discover that Donald is John's father. Gods. What a Greek Drama there. I just can't decide if having Robert Kagan be Donald Kagan's son is more of a comedy, satire, or tragedy. Some lessons just don't get shared with sons I guess. Well, perhaps they do, but only when they are carved into marble.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exploring a War Through the Eyes of an Historian
22 February 2020 - Berri

I guess it was time for me to read some non-fiction, since I have been reading quite a few fiction works of late (though I generally don’t put the ancient works that I read into the category of non-Fiction, namely because in my mind they fall into a completely different category – namely ancient works – anyway, ancient authors tend to have a completely different style to modern academic authors).

Well, I found this book in a second-hand bookshop (where I tend to find a bulk of my books by the way) and I am always interested in reading some modern non-fiction on the ancient world, especially since academics do tend to put a different slant on the topics. Well, it seems as if Kagan is an expert on the Peloponnesian War, since I suspect that he teaches the topic at university, and of course academics do tend to like writing books about the subject that they are teaching, even if it is just to flog their books off to the students in their classes.

His argument is that Thucydides is the first proper historian, namely because Herodotus sort of just made things up as he was going along. Okay, maybe that is being a bit too harsh on the Father of History, but then again he is also referred to as the Father of Lies as well, and when some commentators refer to Herodotus as a source, they generally laugh and simply say ‘yeah right’. Okay, maybe that was just Simon Whistler when he was talking about the pyramids, but I sort of do tend to agree with him (especially since Herodotus completely ignores the existence of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah).

The problem is that a bulk of this book is just going over the war, with a few references to how Thucydides simply reported on the events. Mind you, Thucydides didn’t write a chronicle on the entire war, but rather just to the end of the disastrous Sicilian expedition, and then he died. Well, maybe not, because it is also a possibility that the Sicilian expedition, and its ending, was the whole purpose of his book, and that he was showing us how Athens got to the point where they pretty much lost their entire navy, and also a huge number of soldiers.

Another thing that Kagan explores is the nature of the three main generals that were leading Athens during the war: Pericles, Cleon, and Nicias. Well, okay, we also have Alcibadies, the one who encouraged people to go and attempt to capture Sicily, with grand dreams of creating a pan-Mediterranean empire, but he really only focuses on the conduct of these particular generals. In a way, it seems that hesitation was the main problem here. Both Pericles and Nicias were fighting the war by playing it safe, whereas Cleon would boldly go out and attack. Well, sort of because despite resounding victories, Cleon was still a pretty bad general. In fact, it was Demosthenes that won the battles that Cleon was credited in winning. In fact, it was the capture of the Spartan force on Pylos that allowed the war to last as long as it did.

Pericles, however, was fighting a defensive war, which wasn’t working. The idea was to hide behind the walls and let the Spartans ravage the countryside. Well, they might sound like it would work, except that it didn’t since it drained the treasury, and the Spartans were more than happy to just ravage the land – they controlled the land, which meant that they controlled Athens’ food supplies and money. As such, the quick war that Pericles envisioned never came about.

Nicias, on the other hand, used a similar cautious tactic in Sicily, which resulted in their opponents reinforcing their cities, and for the Peloponnesians to quickly send troops. He also relied upon the possibility of allies helping them, which eventually did not happen. As such, even though the suggestion was that they could have won on Sicily, the fact that Nicias didn’t take hold of the advantage that they had resulted in them losing that advantage. Of course, when things turned sour, the last thing he could have done was retreat because, well, just such an action would label him a coward meaning that a return to Athens simply was not possible (and losing battles in Ancient Greece really didn’t go down too well with the people).

Yeah, let's talk about allies. They tend to be a problem because allies tend to drag you into wars that you don’t want to be dragged into. Germany faced that problem back in 1914 when all of their allies started declaring war on each other, forcing them to jump in as well. Sure, it was a powder keg, and there had already been two wars fought in the Balkans, but this third one ended up exploding beyond all expectations, resulting in one of the bloodiest wars in history. This was a similar case in Ancient Greece, with a system of alliances that resulted in both Athens and Sparta coming to a head. It was battles between other city-states that eventually called in the two big powers to fight against each other.

Mind you, the one oddity that still sits in my mind is this whole thing with the Spartans captured at Pylos. Why is it that the Spartans, who were known for their motto of returning with their shield, or on it, were so desperate to get their troops back. Surely they would have returned in dishonour, and probably been executed. Why haggle with the Athenians over their return – if they allowed themselves to be captured, surely that would have meant that they weren’t good soldiers, and surely the Spartan response should have been ‘kill them, we don’t want such soldiers anyway’.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thucydides' book transcends history. It is not great because of the history it is telling; it is great for how he tells his story. Kagan dumbs Thucydides’ book down by falsely thinking of it as primarily a history book. That is a misreading on what Thucydides accomplishes. There is a universal nature to the individual as we are thrown into the particular for which Thucydides understands, and Kagan misapplies.

There’s no reason to read this book, just read or reread Thucydides. Definitely don’t make the topical of today as a blueprint for understanding Thucydides as this author inanely did. It is near stupid to call the cold-war of the 1960s as a post-template for the Peloponnesus war as Kagan tries to do. Don’t ever fall for the trap that history repeats itself at best it only rhymes. Don’t use today’s eyes to assess yesterday’s masterpieces without first realizing what the writer thought for themselves within their own context.

Books like this one are dangerous. Only the book editors in the ‘Wall Street Journal’ could think this book was a worthy history of histories. That’s how I mistakenly came across this book. Thucydides’ book, and two books mentioned in this book, Livy’s History of Rome and Herodotus’ Histories are not masterpieces because of their histories. They are masterpieces because of the way they transcend time, transcend the history they are telling and tell the reader how they thought about themselves. Don’t waste your time with trite like this book, just read the original books yourself.

There was one thing Kagan told me that I did not catch on my own. In the beginning of Thucydides' story Pericles says ‘if we do that, we will be tyrants’, and everyone thought that would be awful. Later on, Cleon, the successor of Pericles says ‘if we do that, we will be tyrants’, and everyone thought that would be great. Thucydides was clearly showing that the people (‘the mob’) was easily malleable depending on the circumstance, and Pericles illustrated what was best with the people and Cleon the worst.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very solid history of the war. It sometimes didn’t seem to deliver on its promise of focusing on the Thucydides’ new approach to history but, over time, Kagan tells us where Thucydides personal biases affected his judgments about Athenian leaders and strategic decisions.

[Chris]

A friend asked me about this book. Here is what I wrote to him...

Of course I recommend the book...It's Donald Kagan on Thucydides!!! I admit that I have only inspected the book and have not yet given it the complete reading it obviously deserves. But here's my preliminary impression.

First off, the book develops themes that Kagan has presented in some of his previous work, especially in a brief (and quite insightful) article he wrote about 20 years ago called something like, "The First Revisionist Historian." Also, some points in the book previously appeared in Kagan's biography of Pericles, others in vol. 1 of his four-volume series on the Peloponnesian War, and still others in chapter 1 of his fine book, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. In short, there does not appear to be a lot of new stuff in this book.

Second, Kagan reads Thucydides primarily with historical questions in view. This is, of course, legitimate and important, but such a reading necessarily overlooks other aims of Thucydides' project. Thus, to assess Thucydides as a historian is to assess only one dimension of Thucydides. To his credit, Kagan understands this. But a reader should be aware that there is far more going on in Thucydides than what Kagan chooses to interact with.

Third, the book displays Kagan's remarkable clarity and depth. Few equal him in either attribute.

Fourth, Thucydides is the premiere political historian, and delivers a powerfully nuanced political philosophy through his narrative. His greatest followers, Machiavelli and Hobbes, towering figures though they were, could not rise to Thucydides' level. What I quarrel with in Thucydides--adamantly--is his view that political explanations are total explanations. On this point I fall squarely on the side of Herodotus over against Thucydides. I join Herodotus when he takes social and cultural matters seriously in historical analysis. But on this question Kagan sides with Thucydides. I don't buy in to the old-time tendency to privilege political history that Kagan celebrates.

Finally, if you buy only one book by Kagan, get his one-volume Peloponnesian War or On the Origins of War. If you buy only one book on Thucydides, I would put this one in line behind both Clifford Orwin's The Humanity of Thucydides and Gregory Crane's Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity. Does that mean that Kagan's book on Thucydides is not worthwhile? Not at all. Read that one too!

[Karl Rove]

If you haven’t read any Kagan before, better to start with his majestic Pericles Of Athens And The Birth Of Democracy.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kagan, Donald. Thucydides: The Reinvention of History.

Donald Kagan’s goal, whether stated or not, is to rescue Athenian democracy from Thucydides’ charge that after the death of Pericles, it was manipulated by successive demagogues. On a more positive note, we get a tour-de-force of the causes of the Peloponnesian War, the figures involved, and the disastrous (or happy, depending on your point of view) end.

What makes the Peloponnesian War so fascinating is that it seems easy to make parallels between Athenian democracy and American foreign policy today. We have the narrative of Sea Power vs. Land Power, democracy vs. strong man government. Kagan (or Thucydides) notes that this is one of the first wars in which money was a factor.

Kagan’s other goal is to rebut Thucydides’/Pericles’ argument that the war between Athen and Sparta (or America and China/Russia) was inevitable. I think the standard scholarly line at this point is that Kagan is correct, at least as the argument currently stands. Was war inevitable? If life in Athens and Sparta continued as is, then no. On the other hand, proponents of international democracy rarely consider Pericles’ warning: your empire has become a tyranny. You now have to keep it whether you like it or not.

Kagan’s method is to examine Thucydides’ word (logos) against the actual deed (ergon). To do this he consults Plutarch to see what Thucydides is leaving out.

My main contention is Kagan’s rebuttal of Thucydides’ claim that Athens wasn’t a true democracy. The most obvious point is the number of slaves and disenfranchised women. Kagan notes, however, that this was true of almost every society and form of government until a few centuries ago (and still true in the Middle East today). Fair enough. He then counters that numerous playwrights criticized Pericles, something he asserts would be impossible in a dictatorship. The implication is that means it is a true democracy. I disagree. Kagan has something in mind like “Free speech” customs. While they are often in a democracy (except for Lincoln’s and Wilson’s presidencies), they are not part of the definition of a democracy, and so can’t be relevant to the discussion.

More troubling, though, is that Kagan doesn’t address Athen’s dialogue with the Metilians. As Athens was taking them over (question: is empire consistent or inconsistent with democracy?), Athens says, “Freedom and hope is nice, but we are stronger than you are and there isn’t much you can do to stop us.”

Aside from this criticism, this is a fine work of analysis and historiography.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Over the centuries, the Greek historian Thucydides has developed an enviable reputation. What Donald Kagan manages to do in his Thucydides: The Reinvention of History is show that even the great historian of the Peloponnesian War had an axe to grind:

He was not the perfect picture of detachment his admirers thought him to be, and he was certainly not the purely literary genius, free from the trammels of historical objectivity, that too many recent scholars have claimed him to be. For all his unprecedented efforts to seek and test the evidence, and for all his originality and wisdom, he was not infallible.

He was a great historian, but he was, in the end, human.

It is fascinating going over the major events of the war and seeing Thucydides continue his allegiance to Pericles long after Pericles died. The Athenian leaders who came after Pericles were not to his liking, so Kagan finds him underestimating Cleon and overestimating Nicias. A fascinating read.

[Arturo Sierra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! I can only wish there was more. It’s not that Thucydides lied, but Kagan clearly shows that he massaged the facts to accommodate his interpretation of events, and the evidence for this is in Thucydides’ own account. This revelation adds a lot of complexity and interest to reading The History of the Peloponnesian War.
Kagan´s prose is clean and precise, and easy to follow along even in audiobook format. A very elegant writer.

[Bryn Hammond · Rating 2 out of 5]

This writer on Thuc isn't for me; I found his interpretations influenced by his views on the present day (and I differ from his politics). But then it bugs me that Thuc is enlisted in our world affairs the way he is.

[Ben Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Far from being a disembodied mind immune to human bias, Thucydides was, as argued by Kagan a revisionist historian. Kagan takes specific instances in Thucydides Peloponnesian War and explains how the editorial conclusions of Thucydides are actually contradicted by his own narrative, along with, occasionally, other evidence from the time.

If you have read Kagan’s four volumes on the Peloponnesian War, you will already be familiar with each of these cases: the causes of the war, the character of Kleon, and the reasons for the Sicilian Expedition are all addressed using the same evidence as the other books. What I enjoyed most was Kagan’s conclusion, where he explicates his own views on the value of Thucydides’ history and its importance to the entire discipline of history. While presenting views that are in opposition to his contemporaries, Thucydides does not deceive or trick his audience, but advises them and argues to them his own conclusions. In addition, he revised the very genre of history, narrowing down Herodotus’ “inquiry” to something more manageable and focused. This reinvention of history, this political history, lays the foundation of almost every other written history for the next two and a half thousand years.

[Reynold Witmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here are the thoughts of a master historian, on a master historian. Donald Kagan, a brilliant scholar and student of Thucydides, makes the case for understanding Thucydides as a revisionist historian.
I'll admit this is a bit of a niche book, but i thoroughly enjoyed it. Kagan compares the facts Thucydides gives to the conclusions T arrives at, and demonstrates how T is carefully shaping the way a history is remembered and understood. This book isn't an argument of one historian vs another, its a master teaching how to ask questions and understand the past.
When reading Thucydides, the reader ought to ask questions and form conclusions. What Kagan does that is invaluable, is ask, "why does Thucydides want me to ask this question? What conclusion does Thucydides want me to reach? Why?"
This book gave me some tools for understanding Thucydides better, but ultimately it is a much needed (for me) guide to asking better questions and pursuing deeper answers.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kagan argues that when Thucydides composed his magnificent history, he did so with revisionist zeal; that is, that despite his declaration that he will declare simply the facts (an assertion for which he earned Nietzsche's rare approbation), Thucydides deliberately conceals and distorts certain facts, while also denouncing his political enemies to all posterity. Nevertheless Kagan, like many of us, acknowledges Thucydides' greatness-- not least because (as Kagan half-smilingly admits), all the facts used to demonstrate Thucydides' falsity must ultimately mined from his own history. This is a work which enriches our understanding of a classic (and notoriously difficult) text, written by a master classicist. A true gem.

[Cristobal Peña]

What were Thucydides' biases?
What were the characteristics that made his reporting of history particularly unique?
These seem to be the implicit questions that the book proposed.

While I still have not finished the history of the Peloponnesian war I thought Thucydides to be particularly objective especially compared to his contemporaries like herodutus.
His really through questioning and scrutiny made me really forget he is a person.
A person that even actually participated in the war and was even a victim of osctracism. These among many other things would have surely affected his opinions.
What opinions did he hold? That is another interesting question which the book tackles via which speeches were not reported, the characterization of thoughts of certain people , contrasting sources,etc
Kagan attempts this by retelling some of the most important moments of the war , pointing out when certain things are missing , when certain people are portrayed particularly negatively,etc.

[Benjamin Phillips · Rating 3 out of 5]

This should have been an article.

His argument that Thucydides is a revisionist who deliberately seeks to change public opinion is fine and well-made, but because it’s a popular level work, he has to spend an excessive amount of time summarizing swathes of the Peloponnesus War. Should have been written as a shorter work for people who already appreciate Thucydides and can fill in the historical context.

[Stefanos · Rating 5 out of 5]

A prolific modern researcher authoring a book on one of the most prolific authors of all time. Donald Kagan is one of the very few people that can be considered experts on Thucydides and this book encapsulates four decades of research and presents an excellent, provoking case, i.e. Thucydides the revisionist, who aimed at revising popular views on the causes and course of the Peloponnesian war. The book, just like Thucydides, aims at the educated reader and provides an excellent discussion of the way the historian structured his work and how content, but also omissions, serve his purpose, that is to show that the Athenian mob was responsible for the defeat because they departed from the wise leadership of gifted men, such as Pericles. As Kagan insightfully notes, what is unique about Thucydides is the fact that it is his own narrative that provides all the evidence to dispute his interpretation of the events and human actions. In the end, Thucydides' History is not only "a possession for all time", but a rebuttal of contemporary views that blamed Pericles and Nicias, and praised Cleon and Alcibiades. A masterpiece.

[Pterodactyl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Donald Kagan starts out with a simple thesis: Thucydides, who is widely renowned in modern times for giving "just the facts" in his history, is not entirely free from bias in his History of the Peloponnesian War... in fact, his point was to convince his contemporaries to accept a radically different view of the war than was popular in his day. Contemporaries blamed the war on Pericles, but big T, who had long been a supporter of Pericles, argued that the war was systemic and inevitable. They also blamed Nicias, another man T admired, for the failure of the Sicilian expedition. T says no, it was the fault of demagogueic post-Periclean democracy. Kagan points out how T can be selective in his reporting in order to show his side of the story... but after basically ripping on T for the whole book, in the final chapter Kagan makes it clear that he still admires Thucydides (as one would expect, since Kagan has dedicated much of his professional career to T and the Peloponnesian War), and that most of the evidence he uses against T comes straight from T's history: in short, while even T could not completely escape bias in his conclusions, he was still a model historian because he gave the facts so that many conclusions could be drawn. Kagan also speaks up for political history in the last few pages, defending it against the ever growing tide of social and cultural history that now dominates.

This book was really engrossing. I knew very little about the Peloponnesian War before reading the book, but Kagan fills in the basic for neophytes like myself, and the narrative of the war is well balanced with his analysis. It seems written for a fairly general audience, but you will probably need some interest in history to care about whether or not Thucydides was biased.

[Masen Production · Rating 5 out of 5]

“2500 years ago a war raged in ancient Greece that lasted 30 years. It was then chronicled by Thucydides an Athenian by birth & who too had been part of this war. His account of this war has been a treatise for all historians across two & a half millennia to muse over & to comprehend what caused this great war & draw parallels to wars of their times.
Thanks to his research & unbiased writing History had finally found a pioneer who taught how one should chronicle it. This book by Donald Keegan is a treat since for the first time an individual has written an autobiography of him based out of the book he has written.
Its a wonderful attempt & for all those who are aware or read Thucydides "30 years of Peloponnese war" Then this book is a treat not to be missed.”

[Frank Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kagan is the true master of Ancient Greek and Roman history -- and it always an illuminating experience to read virtually anything he writes. Here Kagan reviews Thucydides and his histories, seeking to dispel fact from fiction and thereby giving us a deeper and more robust understanding of this true Father of History. A great companion book to have and read with Thucydides works

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book. The modern doyen of the history of the Peloponnesian War, Donald Kagan, in deep reflection on the history, and the historian, of that war Thucydides. Famously the "inventor" of the modern idea of history, Kagan shows us that Thucydides was not the dispassionate, apolitical chronicler of events that he claimed to be, but was actually engaged through his work in a revisionist interpretation of what, for him and his countrymen, was recent history.

Kagan has studied not only Thucydides' text but all the other historical artefacts that help explain what went on during the time of the Peloponnesian War, and has come to the conclusion that Thucydides' project was to change the accepted view of why the war played out as it did: to put forward his own views which, Kagan states, differed from the accepted view of the time.

By no means does Kagan suggest that Thucydides was a mere polemicist: in fact he points out that much of the evidence he uses in this book to contradict Thucydides' view actually comes from Thucydides' text. What Kagan is suggesting is that Thucydides wished to use his history to make certain points: that the democratic system in place in Athens during the time of the War was flawed, and that the passion of mob whipped up by demagogues is dangerous. While he recognizes the drawbacks of oligarchic rule, he longs for a wise leader such as Pericles. We probably shouldn't be too surprised about this attitude, as Thucydides was himself an aristocrat. Pericles is the hero, as is Nicias, while Cleon and to a lesser extent Alcibiades are the villains in Thucydides' rendition of events.

Kagan, by focusing on some key events - the causes of the War, Pericles' strategy, whether Athens was actually a democracy, Cleon's victory at Pylos and defeat at Amphipolis and the Sicilian Expedition - dissects Thucydides' account and shows us that he wasn't giving his readers the full story, but only what he wanted to emphasize.

On the causes of the War, Thucydides feels that it was inevitable, as Athens' power grew and its quest for empire became greater and greater. Kagan points out that the War was not in fact inevitable, but came through a series of misunderstandings and provocations that needn't have occurred. While Thucydides bemoans Athens ditching the strategy of Pericles to wait out Sparta, Kagan shows fairly conclusively that this strategy was doomed to fail on all fronts, including economically. He also shows us that Thucydides must have known this, but by only recording one side of the argument he avoids the obvious conclusion. Thucydides uses this "trick" again when discussing Pylos, Amphipolis and the Sicilian Expedition: he emphasizes his version of events while downplaying or avoiding alternate narratives altogether.

It is the story of the Sicilian Expedition where Thucydides' interpretation of events is the most confusing. Kagan, using the evidence provided by Thucydides, convincingly argues that the failure of the expedition can be sheeted home almost exclusively to the actions (or lack of action) of Nicias. He repeatedly made tactical and strategic errors, and certainly seemed to value his own reputation and life over what was best for Athens and the troops under his command. Thucydides provides copious evidence for this point of view, but then comes to the conclusion that it was not Nicias at fault, but the Athenians themselves. Truly confounding.

What Kagan posits, I think acceptably, is that Athens was very democratic, and by no means monolithic in its outlook. Neither Pericles nor Cleon could get their own way by merely wishing it to be so - they had to have support from the Athenian citizens for their strategies. If Cleon was a demagogue, then so too was Pericles. That most of us don't think that is a testament to the power of Thucydides' work, which Kagan acknowledges.

What Kagan does in this work is to remind all of us that one should never necessarily take one person's view on why history happened the way it did as the only truth. We need to balance all the evidence to come to a conclusion. Thucydides claimed to give the unvarnished truth, but like all of us he had a barrow to push, and Kagan very skillfully teases that out in this book. A great read.

Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/

[Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a little torn on how to review Donald Kagan's "Thucydides: The Reinvention of History." I am not a professional historian but majored in ancient history in college, and my favorite professor and thesis advisor studied under Professor Kagan at Yale (and was such a fan he changed his major from math to Greek History!). Professor Kagan is among the most respected historians of the ancient world who ever taught, and so any criticism of his work from me seems more than a bit presumptuous.

But I read his book, and Goodreads gives me the opportunity to do this, so here we go.

In a nutshell, this book by Kagan is a great heaping bowl of fresh spinach seasoned only by a pinch of salt and pepper. Kagan is a writer without flourish or demonstrable style - he is pure mental nutrition. Fresh unseasoned spinach is has a nice flavor, but its primary benefit is its colossal nutritional content. If you read this offering by Kagan, you'll be much better informed by the end, but you may not enjoy the journey all that much.

Kagan offers a thorough description of what we know about the Athenian general and writer Thucydides, and how his unusual circumstances (a once-favored general who is exiled by the Athenians for perceived failures) led him to take the highly unusual step of writing in great detail about the Peloponnesian War (the name for the conflict that ultimately saw the Spartans defeat the Athenians in the 5th century BC) so that readers for all time would know exactly why and how it was fought. Thucydides appears to have remained pro-Athenian in a macro sense but also somewhat resentful of his exile by the Athenian mob (which is understandable). And Thucydides also appears to have taken the unusual step of trying to understand the Spartan perspective as well.

In Kagan's telling, Thucydides made an admirable attempt to seem 'objective' (which was revolutionary in and of itself) but he also was a revisionist historian, countering what he saw as improper contemporary accounts of the war. Kagan, with his encyclopedic understanding of all the relevant source material, efficiently mines other sources, such as contemporary plays, to call into question some of Thucydides' assertions or to put them in a larger context. (Being an ancient historian is kind of like being an astronomer - you're constantly extrapolating from limited information - Kagan is a master.) Kagan susses out Thucydides' biases, such as being very pro-Pericles and against "true democracy," which Thucydides would see as too close to "rule by the mob." Rather, as an aristocrat and as someone who felt the stinging rebuke of an ill-informed Athenian populace, Thucydides was in favor of a democracy under the influence of wise stewards such as Pericles.

All this is entertaining for someone who is very familiar with the Peloponnesian War - if you're looking for a one-volume history of that war, this is not the book you're looking for (Kagan wrote the books you *are* looking for - rest assured!). In fact, it has been so long since I've done any reading about this war I wish I had done some other reading first before diving into Kagan's book.

Overall, I'm recommending the book but I give it three stars because it has a very limited target audience. Also, the subtitle ("the reinvention of history") is rather grandiose. Kagan's ultimate conclusion - that even though Thucydides claimed to write a history for all time, but we need to understand his biases and philosophy in order to truly understand his history - is not all that illuminating - we need to understand those for any writer.

But if you're a hard-core fan of the history of the ancient world, this book is for you.

[Carly Jo · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I found the whole of the text was informative, I had two sincere issues with this book:
1. I don't think I click with Donald Kagan's writing style; this is the first of his books I have read, so this was me testing the waters.
2. I have not read his book on the Peloponnesian War, but I don't think I need to because I felt the book stayed so heavily on discussing the Peloponnesian War instead of Thucydides. I completely understand Kagan needs to outline the war in order to discuss Thucydides, but I don't think the balance was adequately struck. Kagan appeared to quote Thucydides' account of the war more than he (Kagan) spent discussing the how and the why of Thucydides. And save for the introduction to the book, which I thankfully read, very little is stated on Thucydides as a person. Perhaps I came in with the wrong mindset, thinking the book would focus more on Thucydides because his name is in the title, or maybe this book didn't accomplish what it needed to accomplish.

Overall, a very thorough and insightful text about the Peloponnesian War.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got this book because I was looking for a quick and dirty take on Thucydides and his coverage of the Peloponnesian War. Something a little shorter than the history itself. I got that as well as a well-argued dissertation on the fact that Thucydides was not the completely impartial observer of events that he’s frequently made out to be. It turns out that he was human and had his own prejudices and biases along with a personal agenda for writing his history. Go figure.

I guess this was an interesting enough read if a little dry at times.

[Witek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having not (yet?) read Thucydides, I was very grateful for this opinionated introduction to the source material, complete with some interesting and nicely-structured commentary about historical revisionism. I suspect that someone familiar with the period and the original work would pick holes with it and it's not a very detailed account, but I found it readable and informative recounting of the story. Gets a bit bloated and meanders a bit in the second half (or perhaps it was my lack of familiarity with the latter parts of the story), but it was worth my time overall.

[orphia · Rating 3 out of 5]

i read this alongside Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War for my classical studies class, and it actually helped a lot with my understanding of the extracts i have to study. chapters 8 and 9 were particularly useful in giving clarification and drawing attention to things that Thucydides' does in his work and explains the reasons quite clearly. the language is very accessible, and it actually clarified things i thought i understood in clearer terms.

[Thomas Jones]

The first historians (according to Thucidides:)
Other historians, who won’t be named here - creating a prize-essay for the moment, to entertain the listener with epic myths from the past.
Thucidides, brave, handsome - creating a possession for all time, so that none may wonder what caused so great a war among the Hellenes.

[Jason Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a great place for me to start learning about the Peloponnesian war, having not read Thucydides actual history to begin with. I felt quite lost for most of the book, but was able to somewhat piece things together.

That said, I will probably read Thucydides now with a better, more critical understanding.

[Fernando Rodriguez-Villa · Rating 3 out of 5]

More devoted to the evaluating Thucydides' scholarship and mindset then recounting the narrative of the Peloponnesian War, as a result it read more like a history paper than a story (which made it less fun). Still was fun being reintroduced the historical figures for Assassin's Creed: Odyssey.

[Lionkhan-sama · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great historical glimpse into the major war between the Athenian empire and the Spartan conglomerate, with the author giving some key insights about why he believes the historian Thucydides gave the perspectives that he gave at the time.

[Sigrid Fry-Revere · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was fascinated by Kagan's reinterpretation of Thucydides and Kagan's faith in democracy -- a faith I believe Thucydides rightly didn't share.