11-03-2012, 04:18 AM
Right, I feel very weary about just putting my thoughts out there outside of a proper review context, especially since I'll inevitably bump into this guy, so as a MAJOR caveat I wish to re-iterate that I've only briefly flicked through this book, if I eventually read it cover to cover a few times I'm sure my opinion is liable to change.
Ok, firstly, as a Classicist I'm interested in Greek culture(s) e.g how we can read and understand Greek poetry in its context, how Greeks thought etc, so there's a heavy emphasis on Greek religion etc. I'm part of the contextual school and fiercely so, so bear that in mind.
This book is...well its not bad. It focuses mainly on the "Classical" period but can happily adduce evidence from elsewhere.
Now, I'm wary about the amount of modern psychological theory, you see this stuff a lot usually in the American schools...Victor Davis Hanson is a prime example of simply not being able to interact with your sources on their own cultural level, no matter how unpleasant that may be.
The author claims that via his paradigm one can, fruitfully, compare "a Athenian Hoplite, a Medieval Archer, and the Modern Infantrymen" - I would contest this fiercely, indeed later in the book he does stress that the hoplite was diametrically opposed to the modern western infantrymen. Still, the constant use of modern theory can jar.
Throughout the book there is some wonderful refutation of VDH's ideas. Which is great...except that Classicists never really took VDH that seriously....so who is this book for?
The middle section is probably the most valuable, its a technical exposition of how hoplites were recruited and, roughly, the tactical capabilities of the phalanx. Its good stuff if you're after that (personally don't care).
I really worry about his...Athenian exceptionalism. He constantly harps on about this and glosses Athenian culturally ludicrously. He talks broadly of the Athenian consensus too, whatever the hell that means. The recent work on looking at the various layers within Greek cultures are basically ignored. In general, this book heavily simplifies in this area.
Also, the Religious section is bad. In particular reading Ares as "marginalised" is shocking! He's a very important Mycenaean deity, despite the famous scenes in the Iliad and the Odyssey he's important to Homer too (the formulaic system), he was an important civic deity too! look at his distribution of sanctuaries, Platon considered a temenos for him imperative for any sensible city. The entire section is very... Nietzsche, you know, Ares vs Athena and all that bollocks. Basically pre Burkertian analysis.
The other section on politics does well in explaining authority, exclusion, inclusion and all that but again its simplified (arguably for reasons of space?). Overall, its not a bad book. If you're the kind of person who puts serious weight on the technical aspects of war the middle section is useful.
I don't know if I suggest buying it, it is good, but then I've spent about an hour or so with it. Erm...I think it could be useful if read besides Chaniotis' "War in the Hellenistic World" and Van Wee's "Status Warriors". I think it glosses Athenian culture too much (seriously? normative consensus?!?!?!?!?!?!) and the religious section is bad.
Its also notable that Simonides and some of the more pertinent attic comedy bits are absent. As I said, I guess its good...but I don't feel the need to worry about Athens.
Sorry if that doesn't make total sense, its been a long day lol.
Ok, firstly, as a Classicist I'm interested in Greek culture(s) e.g how we can read and understand Greek poetry in its context, how Greeks thought etc, so there's a heavy emphasis on Greek religion etc. I'm part of the contextual school and fiercely so, so bear that in mind.
This book is...well its not bad. It focuses mainly on the "Classical" period but can happily adduce evidence from elsewhere.
Now, I'm wary about the amount of modern psychological theory, you see this stuff a lot usually in the American schools...Victor Davis Hanson is a prime example of simply not being able to interact with your sources on their own cultural level, no matter how unpleasant that may be.
The author claims that via his paradigm one can, fruitfully, compare "a Athenian Hoplite, a Medieval Archer, and the Modern Infantrymen" - I would contest this fiercely, indeed later in the book he does stress that the hoplite was diametrically opposed to the modern western infantrymen. Still, the constant use of modern theory can jar.
Throughout the book there is some wonderful refutation of VDH's ideas. Which is great...except that Classicists never really took VDH that seriously....so who is this book for?
The middle section is probably the most valuable, its a technical exposition of how hoplites were recruited and, roughly, the tactical capabilities of the phalanx. Its good stuff if you're after that (personally don't care).
I really worry about his...Athenian exceptionalism. He constantly harps on about this and glosses Athenian culturally ludicrously. He talks broadly of the Athenian consensus too, whatever the hell that means. The recent work on looking at the various layers within Greek cultures are basically ignored. In general, this book heavily simplifies in this area.
Also, the Religious section is bad. In particular reading Ares as "marginalised" is shocking! He's a very important Mycenaean deity, despite the famous scenes in the Iliad and the Odyssey he's important to Homer too (the formulaic system), he was an important civic deity too! look at his distribution of sanctuaries, Platon considered a temenos for him imperative for any sensible city. The entire section is very... Nietzsche, you know, Ares vs Athena and all that bollocks. Basically pre Burkertian analysis.
The other section on politics does well in explaining authority, exclusion, inclusion and all that but again its simplified (arguably for reasons of space?). Overall, its not a bad book. If you're the kind of person who puts serious weight on the technical aspects of war the middle section is useful.
I don't know if I suggest buying it, it is good, but then I've spent about an hour or so with it. Erm...I think it could be useful if read besides Chaniotis' "War in the Hellenistic World" and Van Wee's "Status Warriors". I think it glosses Athenian culture too much (seriously? normative consensus?!?!?!?!?!?!) and the religious section is bad.
Its also notable that Simonides and some of the more pertinent attic comedy bits are absent. As I said, I guess its good...but I don't feel the need to worry about Athens.
Sorry if that doesn't make total sense, its been a long day lol.
Jass
