Persian Fire: The First World Empire And The Battle For The West (2006) - Plot & Excerpts
The title of this book would lead a reader (this reader, anyway) to believe the focus to be the Achaemenid Empire and it's leading men, Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, leading up to and through the clash between Persia and Greece. That assertion is an error of scope, as Holland looks not only at the rise of Persia, but that of all the major players (e.g., Persia, Sparta, Athens, etc.) in characteristic thrifty but efficient detail, which was much more than I expected--so much the better.Persian Fire corroborated much of the information about the Achaemenid Empire Gore Vidal provided in Creation. This duplication, coupled with the abundance of sources (though largely 20th century), seems an indication that the information is well established, it's simply overlooked as part of a grade school education of the period. Notably, the most prominent Greeks as fractious, greedy, and overconfident; not that that isn't characteristic of most peoples, only that it contrasts with the cursory lay education most receive on the topic. The bulk of Greek history consists of Spartans Strong (like USA!); Athenians Philosophical (like founding fathers!); Doric, Ionian, and Corinthian columns; the Parthenon (made of columns!); Zeus; the like, et al.The most enjoyable aspect of an education is when an important historical event one has accepted (suspected, perhaps, but never had the sense or resources to investigate), has in truth been falsely represented or unduly oversimplified, and is at last exposed as a fallacy.My favorite example of a shattered illusion is the unprecedented beginning of the West's cherished Democracy and the halcyon Greek period that bore it. In Holland's work, Democracy is presented less as a philosophical belief that the common man should have some say in the form of their government rather than the aristocracy, or that positions of authority ought not be exclusive to inheritance, all of which arose as a consequence of Greek philosophers gathering to determine the most equitable method of rule. Instead, it came about as a means for one aristocratic family to wrest power away from another at the cost of the inability for anyone to maintain absolute power. It was a brilliant and elaborate stroke, but invariably one brought about by, as Holland implies, the spite of an out-of-favor aristocratic family.Naturally, the citizens of Athens enthusiastically supported the proposal that they would be allowed to help decide the rules of their society, they rebelled in the streets when Cleisthenes, who gave the power to vote on laws to the people, was chased from the city by a "tyrant" (a form of monarch, though rarely of the disposition that lends to the modern definition of tyranny), who in turn found themselves faced with the power of the mob.Similar anecdotes are strung through Holland's works, creating a tapestry of interwoven events from which he often extrapolates the thoughts, feelings, and ambitions of the characters in these histories. It is a style that may seem somewhat dishonest without supporting text, and is probably the point where he takes the greatest creative license, but at the same time makes the historical figures more than empty-eyed marble busts or rigid profiles on coins, is extremely engaging, and makes sense in the context provided.I believe Holland is in the same league as Pulitzer Prize Winner David McCullough in terms of narrative skill, with an ability to draw a reader into a historical period through the details they choose to include and elaborate upon. The difference between the two, thus far, is McCullough (an American author) tends to focus on American (i.e., USA) history, while Holland (an English author) spends his time on ancient civilizations.Holland began his his writing career as an author of supernatural fiction. He has since turned his English acumen toward bringing history to vibrant life, and he's clearly made the right move for his career, and, more importantly, my enlightenment.I still have two more Holland historical works to read, but I'm enthused by the prospect that, according to his current pace of publication, we should be getting a new Holland work in the next year. I look forward to continuing the process of adulthood re-education.
I must say that this book was really disappointing for me as I was, judging from the title, excitedly expecting a historical narrative of the first Persian Empire. The title was, however, misleading, to say the least.The book starts with a rather hasty overview of Persian empire's background and even with the clever and very interesting insertions of anecdotes, one cannot but feel that the pace is forced. Cyrus the Great gets a decent but short description and his two sons are mentioned in the passing in not very glorious terms. Darius reign again is pushed through (with excellent anecdotes and conjectural musings) and we are led to the times of Xerxes but to the king's reign. That ends the Persian Empire and thus far my short summary above would bravely rival the book in details.Rest of the book, the main bulk of it, is primarily the history of Xerxes' was with the Greeks on land and sea FROM THE GREEK PERSPECTIVE. The Persians are, henceforth, mainly referred to as 'savages' (as they are called by the Greeks) and we are told only about the palatial war tents, luxuries and depletion of the ranks of the Persian side while Greeks cities, their individual legends, genealogies and ancestries, war machine and readiness, strategy, tactics and even minutes acts of bravery and valor are recorded in great details. Even when Xerxes leaves the area, the book is reluctant to move with him to the Persian lands and dwells on Greece even more so that Greek cities politics and rivalries are assiduously documented. I was not reading this book for that.Furthermore, the book, while discussing the War, read so much like the the two installments of the "300" Movies. Especially, as in the second movie where the Persians are never shown to kill or even fight but just to get killed, drowned and burn, I noticed that this book also almost never depict the Persians killing anyone. The episode where Spartan king is defending the narrow pass with (a lot more than) 300 men for days on end, the active combat from dawn till dusk never mentions how many casualties were suffered by them while the deaths of the Greeks are told in gruesome details where the Persians, almost always, are shown to be pushed forward under a threat to be killed if returned. These accounts might or might be true (at times minute by minute details of a raging battle that took place so long ago are hard to digest) but the way they are painted and presented were not to my poor and wanting taste. Apparently, the Persian sources of the War are not not that detailed and most of the accounts must have been borrowed from the contemporary or near-contemporary Greek sources, who are, incidentally, often depicted in the book as excelling each other in fabricating false ancestries and appropriating outlandish mythical and war-like qualities, therefore, it would have been prudent to treat the accounts with a little more caution. In the end, the book merely felt like a ruse to force Greek history on readers who were expecting Persian chronicles.
What do You think about Persian Fire: The First World Empire And The Battle For The West (2006)?
This book is a must for ancient history buffs. These are the Persians! You know, the guys on the other side of the pass at Thermopylae! This is the other empire, the one the Romans could never quite defeat. This book is so full of the meaty stuff of history that I wanted a knife and fork. It didn't hurt my opinion to find that Tom Holland still writes as fluently and beautifully as he did in Rubicon, his previous history of the end of the Roman Republic. If you love learning new stuff about old stuff, Tom Holland is your guy and this book ought to be your book.
—Libby
Came across this volume when looking for books on the Achaemenids. The subject has always fascinated me - the first people to really act on that ancient conceit of universal empire, a people that had a very strong ethno-national identity in a pre-transport revolution age when the folks in the next village spoke an alien language..Unfortunately this book focused a bit too much on the Greeks to really be a primer on the Achaemenids, but it does help put you into their head-space (and the head-space of the Athenians, the Spartans, the Argives, the Ionians and all the rest) when telling their story. Strong cultural background and a reminder that, for all the Frank Miller-esque bleating about how the Greeks were the Founders Of Our Traditions, really, they were a bunch of freaking aliens who we wouldn't recongize as being like us at all. The Athenians, those defenders of liberty, keeping women in Purdah; the Spartan elite hunting helots for sport...It also very firmly in the tradition of literary histories - think Barbara Tuchman. There a weight given to drama and character that is lacking in many other books, and it's a focus that I appreciate.
—Michael O'shaughnessy
I enjoyed this even more than I had "Rubicon". Holland knows how to present and deliver on ancient history. He questions and cajoles his sources but does so in a way that doesn't lessen the pace around the unfolding dramatic events. He looks into the psychology of the time, the motivations of the peoples, factions and warring tribes. All of this combines beautifully into a narrative that honestly it is so hard to put down once started. Although I had read about these events before, it didn't lessen the impact as each famous event is recreated with the tension one would expect from a thriller. So good, that several sections were re-read, I didn't wish to miss a single detail, and savoured every one along the way!Really essential if you want to enjoy key historical events. Better than Hollywood! Highly recommended.
—Fraser
