Review of Tom Holland, Persian Fire (2005)

[Jona Lendering]

I put my review of Holland's book online here.
[size=75:xote78ka](The first section may be familiar to those of you who have read my diatribe against 300.)[/size]

[Narukami]

Jona,

Interesting review -- thanks!

Indeed, Holland's book is not perfect, and, as I said in another thread on this topic elsewhere in the Forum, I thought his earlier book "Rubicon" to be better written and more interesting (though that might be a bias based upon the subject matter).

I do agree that Holland has taken a different and much needed approach to the subject of the Greek-Persian wars, though I was disappointed that when we finally reach the crucial battles Holland seems to run through them rather too quickly and with little depth. Of course, there are several other fine books that deal with these battles in detail and perhaps Holland saw no need to rehash material that had already been well presented.

You listing of Holland's many, if minor, mistakes is quite illuminating. Let us hope he does find the where-with-all to correct them is a future edition.

I would encourage those who enjoyed "The 300" to read this book as an introduction to Xerxes and the Persian Empire. If Frank Miller had read it I doubt he would have changed his depiction of Xerxes (the dictates of the Graphic Novel genre being what they are) however, as it often the case, the facts are far more fascinating than is the fiction.

Again a most informative review. Points to you sir.

:wink:

Narukami

[bachmat66]

Jona,

Interesting review -- thanks!

You listing of Holland's many, if minor, mistakes is quite illuminating. Let us hope he does find the where-with-all to correct them is a future edition.

I would encourage those who enjoyed "The 300" to read this book as an introduction to Xerxes and the Persian Empire. If Frank Miller had read it I doubt he would have changed his depiction of Xerxes (the dictates of the Graphic Novel genre being what they are) however, as it often the case, the facts are far more fascinating than is the fiction.

Again a most informative review. Points to you sir.

:wink:

Narukami

Hello

I agree with you Narukami-san and loudly applaud Jona's review on Livius - bravo!!!
I tried to find a cheaper copy of the Pierre Briant book - around 80 bucks with shipping!
Also, I think Mr Miller ought to have read Cyropaedia by Xenophon and the Shahname by Fedrowsi ( the most marvelous Persian epic poem - there are 2 movies made after Shahname - all made in Tadjikistan back in the 1970s under multicultural policies of old USSR - wonderful films to view and admire - unfortunately hard to find anywhere),
So for those interested in the Persians via literary sources -
Cyropaedia
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/we ... p?num=2085
Shahname translated by Helen Zimmern in pdf (recently published book edition is 1200 pages)
www.omphaloskepsis.com/collection/descr ... ahnam.html

Dario aka Darayavaush

[sulla felix]

Here is a review by Professor Paul Cartledge, just to give a slightly different perspective on Tom Holland's book, which incidentally is aimed at bridging the gap between academic and general readership:

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/book ... 309582.ece

[Jona Lendering]

Here is a review by Professor Paul Cartledge, just to give a slightly different perspective on Tom Holland's book, which incidentally is aimed at bridging the gap between academic and general readership:

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/book ... 309582.ece

Well, that tells quite a lot about Mr. Cartledge. He has contributed to the very book he is reviewing...

[sulla felix]

Hmm.. when you say "contributed" just exactly what do you mean? If he was consulted as an acknowledged expert in a certain field then what is the problem? I actually find it quite comforting that Tom Holland consults acknowledged experts, but perhaps you have a different view on this?

[Jona Lendering]

Yes: when you have been one's advisers, you can not review the book, even when you are the best scholar in the world. Cartledge has on more than one occassion stressed that Thermopylae "changed the world". That's his good right but it is not an uncontested communis opinio; take for instance Max Weber's criticism, Hammond's chapters in the CAH, or Pierre Briant's reinterpretation. Now, in his review, Cartledge praises Holland for what is essentially repeating Cartledge's interpretation.

That interpretation may be correct, but there reasonable doubt is possible about Cartledge's independence.

It may be interesting to look at US newspapers (or the New York Review of Books), which demand that a reviewer fills in a form in which he declares that he is independent. If he knows the author personally, he must indicate it (but can proceed), but if he has contributed to the book, someone else will write the review. If it is really impossible to find another reviewer, the initial reviewer will be asked a second time, but he has to indicate in the review that he may be biased. I think this is a wise policy.

I know a Dutch book that contains many mistakes. But it is published by the publisher that also publishes my books, so I can not write a review, because there is a (reasonable) suspicion that I will be biased. I hate that book, but I have to accept that I can not write a review. Last year, I had to answer 200 e-mails about the blunders in that book, yuck.

[sulla felix]

Jona,

The view that "Thermopylae changed the world" is perfectly valid for any number of indivduals to express, because it is opinion based upon their interpretation of the available evidence. You and others have a contrary opinion. The only fact is that nobody actually knows for sure (which is the great attraction and curse of ancient history and archaeology). I personally feel that Tom Holland makes this perfectly clear in his work, but his narrative style lends itself to detailed criticism, in the main because his work is aimed at a wider audience, and not the world of academia. It is a synthesis on a fascinating subject, but it is just an interpretation (as 300 is just a movie ).

I take your point about academic principles and reviews, but I have to say I tend to agree with Mike Bishop about the merits or otherwise of academic reviews - total waste of paper (or cyber space)!

[Jona Lendering]

You know my point of view: the movie 300 is not just a comic book movie, because the plot has been changed; writing for a general audience is not an excuse for inaccuracy; and Weber's criticism of the Meyer hypothesis ought to make it unacceptable for any modern scholar, like Cartledge.

However, let's agree to disagree on this. There are so many other interesting to explore.