A review by sophronisba
Sparta: Rise of a Warrior Nation by Philip Matyszak
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
4.25
This book makes for an enjoyable reading experience. I thought Matyszak's writing was witty and engaging, at times almost breezy, and makes for an enjoyable whirlwind tour of ancient Sparta. It's filled with interesting nuggets and characters -- you won't soon forget Cleomenes, for example -- and to his credit Matyszak takes pains to note which stories seem to be backed up by historical evidence and which ones seem to be just good stories. If you are interested in ancient warfare, I think you'll find you can't put this book down.
It's worth noting that Matyszak's perspective on the war between Greece and Persian is vastly different from the one that Tom Holland presents in Persian Fire. Where Holland was obsessed with the idea that the survival of Athens ensured the rise of classical western civilization, Matyszak is much more interested in how Sparta prevailed, and what it learned from its victory. "That day in high summer marked the end of Persian invasion," he writes. "The victories of Plataea and Mycale also marked the apogee of Sparta as a Greek nation. At no time before or since was Sparta so powerful, so admired, feared and respected. ‘All men know the right thing to do, but only the Spartans actually do it’, ran a contemporary proverb. Throughout the Persian invasion the Greeks had looked to Sparta for leadership, and Sparta had delivered. The battle of Plataea demonstrated that even when that leadership was of poor quality, the superb training, discipline, courage and equipment of the average Spartan hoplite was enough to carry the day."
Rather than seeing the conflict as the victory of good or evil, as Holland does, Matyszak sees its aftermath almost as a tragedy, arguing that the Spartans did not understand how or why they had won. They credited their traditions, which they -- like many other civilizations throughout history, not excepting our own -- believed to be static and above reproach. (Think of them as the constitutional originalists of ancient Greece.) But Matyszak believes that the real impetus for their success was their innovation and ability to adapt to changing circumstances. But that's now how Sparta saw it; and so their precious traditions fossilized. Inflexible and close-minded, Sparta fell into obscurity.
That makes some narrative sense. If only it had been fleshed out! Unfortunately the fall of Sparta -- which the whole book seems to be leading up to -- is relegated to the epilogue, which isn't much longer than the paragraph I just wrote to summarize it. This makes for an unsatisfying literary arc; but more than that, it gives a false sense of Sparta's success, or lack thereof. A whole book, albeit a short one, devoted to the glorious civilization of Sparta with two pages tacked onto the end explaining that in fact, Sparta fell into obscurity gives an unbalanced and ultimately inaccurate idea of its history. And it's this sort of imbalance that feeds the idea that Sparta -- a rigid and unforgiving society to live in -- was actually successful. It's undoubtedly more fun to write about the colorful adventures of the ancient Spartans, but it's more important to understand the reasons for its ultimate failure.
It's worth noting that Matyszak's perspective on the war between Greece and Persian is vastly different from the one that Tom Holland presents in Persian Fire. Where Holland was obsessed with the idea that the survival of Athens ensured the rise of classical western civilization, Matyszak is much more interested in how Sparta prevailed, and what it learned from its victory. "That day in high summer marked the end of Persian invasion," he writes. "The victories of Plataea and Mycale also marked the apogee of Sparta as a Greek nation. At no time before or since was Sparta so powerful, so admired, feared and respected. ‘All men know the right thing to do, but only the Spartans actually do it’, ran a contemporary proverb. Throughout the Persian invasion the Greeks had looked to Sparta for leadership, and Sparta had delivered. The battle of Plataea demonstrated that even when that leadership was of poor quality, the superb training, discipline, courage and equipment of the average Spartan hoplite was enough to carry the day."
Rather than seeing the conflict as the victory of good or evil, as Holland does, Matyszak sees its aftermath almost as a tragedy, arguing that the Spartans did not understand how or why they had won. They credited their traditions, which they -- like many other civilizations throughout history, not excepting our own -- believed to be static and above reproach. (Think of them as the constitutional originalists of ancient Greece.) But Matyszak believes that the real impetus for their success was their innovation and ability to adapt to changing circumstances. But that's now how Sparta saw it; and so their precious traditions fossilized. Inflexible and close-minded, Sparta fell into obscurity.
That makes some narrative sense. If only it had been fleshed out! Unfortunately the fall of Sparta -- which the whole book seems to be leading up to -- is relegated to the epilogue, which isn't much longer than the paragraph I just wrote to summarize it. This makes for an unsatisfying literary arc; but more than that, it gives a false sense of Sparta's success, or lack thereof. A whole book, albeit a short one, devoted to the glorious civilization of Sparta with two pages tacked onto the end explaining that in fact, Sparta fell into obscurity gives an unbalanced and ultimately inaccurate idea of its history. And it's this sort of imbalance that feeds the idea that Sparta -- a rigid and unforgiving society to live in -- was actually successful. It's undoubtedly more fun to write about the colorful adventures of the ancient Spartans, but it's more important to understand the reasons for its ultimate failure.