Scan barcode
rlgreen91's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
Confession time: I won this in a Goodreads giveaway a very long time ago...like years ago. Yikes. In my defense, I did enjoy it when I started reading it, I just put it down to start on works for different book clubs, and after starting and stopping a few times, I just put it down altogether.
So, naturally, this was a prime candidate for this year's personal challenge to read a book on each of my shelves! And I have to say, I'm really glad I did. Although I did end up taking a break to help run discussions for a book club, at least this time I managed to make it like 3/4 of the way through the book before I did so. It made it a lot easier to pick it back up again and watch what was at that point more about the fall of Athens as a city-state.
Ok, so what did I actually like about this book? Well, I enjoy history in general, however I'm not sure that I've read another narrative history book before now. I found Everitt's style engaging, overall, with a dry sense of humor that peeked out from time to time. The book is also apparently very well researched, with an extensive bibliography and additional sections detailing Everitt's research process and how he evaluated various sources.
The only thing I disliked was the location of the primary reference maps - rather than having them at the beginning of the book, they were instead placed between the preface and table of contents. So rather than being able to just jump to the beginning of the book to view the reference maps, I would then have to flip through the preface to find the maps. While this was easily solved with a post-it note, it was an odd decision layout wise that caused a wrinkle when trying to actually use the primary reference maps - and enough of a frustration to come to mind when writing a review, apparently.
Overall, I really did enjoy the book - I'll be sure to check out Everitt's other books and maybe other narrative histories.
So, naturally, this was a prime candidate for this year's personal challenge to read a book on each of my shelves! And I have to say, I'm really glad I did. Although I did end up taking a break to help run discussions for a book club, at least this time I managed to make it like 3/4 of the way through the book before I did so. It made it a lot easier to pick it back up again and watch what was at that point more about the fall of Athens as a city-state.
Ok, so what did I actually like about this book? Well, I enjoy history in general, however I'm not sure that I've read another narrative history book before now. I found Everitt's style engaging, overall, with a dry sense of humor that peeked out from time to time. The book is also apparently very well researched, with an extensive bibliography and additional sections detailing Everitt's research process and how he evaluated various sources.
The only thing I disliked was the location of the primary reference maps - rather than having them at the beginning of the book, they were instead placed between the preface and table of contents. So rather than being able to just jump to the beginning of the book to view the reference maps, I would then have to flip through the preface to find the maps. While this was easily solved with a post-it note, it was an odd decision layout wise that caused a wrinkle when trying to actually use the primary reference maps - and enough of a frustration to come to mind when writing a review, apparently.
Overall, I really did enjoy the book - I'll be sure to check out Everitt's other books and maybe other narrative histories.
rpych2's review against another edition
4.0
Ancient Athens is one of my favorite historical places of all time, so it’s obvious that this one would catch my eye when browsing a bookstore. And this was a really informative book, while still being easy enough to read where it wasn’t a slog. I liked the Socrates accounts, but my favorite part was the chapters on the war with Sparta. Definitely one of the more fun nonfiction books I’ve read lately.
jameskay907's review against another edition
Slow pacing, it didn't feel engaging.
lenzen's review against another edition
4.0
Athens was definitely the world's greatest civilization. Contrary to the title, however, the book covers not only its rise but also its downfall. The author argues that it was precisely because of Athens’ direct democracy and, specifically, choosing citizens to fill most roles in government by lot and paying them to serve that it achieved this greatness. Everitt shows how the achievements of the city plus the general ability of its most aggressive leaders to stir the polis led to overconfidence. This, in turn, led to aggressive expansionism beyond what the city could sustain, harsh treatment of its supposed allies in the Delian League, and outright atrocities against others.
Athens’ great rival Sparta is described in good detail. Other rivals like Thebes and Persia are covered but only briefly. The bulk of the book is focused on Athens’ Golden Age and the Peloponnesian War. It also spends a couple of chapters wrapping up with Athenian history after its loss in this great war up to the rise of Alexander. After that there are a few paragraphs at the end very briefly recounting what happened to the city after Alexander.
For the most part the book is a good read. There are, also, fascinating questions that come to mind along the way such as how much of an Athenian style democracy we would want today? Many on the left want to move in the direction of more direct democracy so it is an important question to ponder. What benefits would we be likely to see and what would be the risks?
The story generally moves along well, although in some cases too many years and too many characters are packed into too short a space. The description of the Athenian outlook on life and how religion influenced it is fascinating. Although I liked the amount of detail on exactly how Athens’ government worked, I would have liked to see more time spent on its intellectual achievements. These are described but I felt too little time is spent there compared to military and political history. Every empire has its military and political history, but Athens’ intellectual achievements are what is most unique about it. So why not more focus there?
The book would probably work better as a two-volume set, with one volume ending at the end of the Peloponnesian War and another covering the subsequent period until Phillip's assassination. As it stands, the latter history is just breezed through too quickly.
Athens’ great rival Sparta is described in good detail. Other rivals like Thebes and Persia are covered but only briefly. The bulk of the book is focused on Athens’ Golden Age and the Peloponnesian War. It also spends a couple of chapters wrapping up with Athenian history after its loss in this great war up to the rise of Alexander. After that there are a few paragraphs at the end very briefly recounting what happened to the city after Alexander.
For the most part the book is a good read. There are, also, fascinating questions that come to mind along the way such as how much of an Athenian style democracy we would want today? Many on the left want to move in the direction of more direct democracy so it is an important question to ponder. What benefits would we be likely to see and what would be the risks?
The story generally moves along well, although in some cases too many years and too many characters are packed into too short a space. The description of the Athenian outlook on life and how religion influenced it is fascinating. Although I liked the amount of detail on exactly how Athens’ government worked, I would have liked to see more time spent on its intellectual achievements. These are described but I felt too little time is spent there compared to military and political history. Every empire has its military and political history, but Athens’ intellectual achievements are what is most unique about it. So why not more focus there?
The book would probably work better as a two-volume set, with one volume ending at the end of the Peloponnesian War and another covering the subsequent period until Phillip's assassination. As it stands, the latter history is just breezed through too quickly.