Scan barcode
didactylos's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
4.0
At times I almost felt the Persians were enlightened -redresses the view that the Greeks were the good guys.
pmjnewton's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
inspiring
medium-paced
4.5
I loved this book , but if you’re not into non fiction history about the ancient world; it’s not for you. Holland sets out the causes of the Persian-Greek wars to put them into a comprehensive and understandable context. He then delivers really exciting narratives and descriptions about the unfolding events . I knew what was going to happen at Thermopylae, but he produced a nerve wracking piece of writing as both sides waited for death in the heat. It was easy to read, an instructive story and no less important for being an ancient tale.
jjb21's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
slow-paced
3.25
Background about Persia at the start completely unnecessary! And boring. But by the end, reading about the Athenians and Spartans, I was fully wrapped up in the story. Slow but rewarding
mbates185's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
2.25
I really wanted to like this book. It was interesting that it presented (or at least tried to) the Greco-Persian Wars from a Persian perspective when we’re used to hearing about the conflict through a wholly Greek viewpoint in the West. However, as the book continues to the conflict itself, the information is still mostly pulled from Greek sources. While I understand that the Persian sources are likely limited, this was disappointing nonetheless.
Another issue I had was the prose. This book was lauded for its beautiful prose and sweeping narrative epic, but I think this did the narrative itself a disservice. There were so many flowery passages that, along with frequent and intrusive tangents that attempted to give context for events but merely distracted, brought me out of the narrative constantly. I would have preferred more laconic (ha) prose.
Another issue I had was the prose. This book was lauded for its beautiful prose and sweeping narrative epic, but I think this did the narrative itself a disservice. There were so many flowery passages that, along with frequent and intrusive tangents that attempted to give context for events but merely distracted, brought me out of the narrative constantly. I would have preferred more laconic (ha) prose.
jimmacsyr's review against another edition
5.0
Fantastic book. Buildup of the major players, detailing the Persian, Athenian, and Spartan societies. Well written, and very enlightening.
periklis's review against another edition
4.0
Vivid description of the Persian and Greek worlds. An interesting approach to the Persian Empire (which I have not encountered previously), and focus on the Persian wars and the glory of the Greek civilisation. A good history book.
jwsg's review against another edition
3.0
I had loved loved loved Tom Holland's Rubicon and was very much looking forward to Persian Fire. And overall, I did enjoy Persian Fire, but found it overall somehow less compelling a read compared to Rubicon.
In Persian Fire, Holland details the rise of Persia as a global superpower, how it had its beginnings when the nomadic Medes defeated the Assyrians and under a succession of rulers - Astyages, Cyrus (a Persian, the king of Anshan), then Cyrus's son Cambyses, then Darius, then Darius's son Xerxes - gradually extended the reach of the Persian empire from Mesopotamia and Babylon, to Egypt and Syria, Armenia and Bactria, all the way to Lydia and Ionia. The heart of the book focusses on Xerxes' attempt to cement his status as King of Kings by conquering the poor and mountainous Greek states. Notwithstanding his superior firepower, and his ability to draw soldiers from all his vassal states, it is ultimately the scrappy and bickering Greek states who manage to pull together to fight off the Persian threat.
I'm not sure why exactly I didn't love Persian Fire as much as Rubicon. Perhaps it was because like Rubicon, the cast of characters in Persian Fire and how they relate to one another was pretty confusing at times. Yet, unlike Rubicon, where there were characters I had heard about or learned about like Cicero, Julius Caesar and Pompey, most of the characters in Persian Fire were completely new to me. (I'm embarrassed to admit what little I knew about the Persians and Greeks came from reading about the movie 300, which centres on the battle between Xerxes' troops and the vastly outnumbered Spartan army at Thermopylae.) And being spatially challenged, I just found it tough to keep track of the numerous battles across the sprawling geography of the Persian empire.
Perhaps it was because I had vivid memories of visiting Rome and that somehow helped me connect with the narrative in Rubicon more intimately; but most of the places and sites mentioned in Persian Fire were unfamiliar and unknown to me.
Or perhaps it was really because I just didn't like where history was taking the book. That I found it hard to cheer for the scrappy Greek underdogs and the Athenians in particular who wanted to preserve their fledgeling democracy.
But like Rubicon, I loved the vivid descriptions that Holland gave of life in 5th century BC. His rich detailing of Spartan culture and life in particular, really helped my understand where the meaning of the term "spartan" comes from. Perhaps if I'd read Persian Fire before reading Rubicon, that might have changed my response to the book.
In Persian Fire, Holland details the rise of Persia as a global superpower, how it had its beginnings when the nomadic Medes defeated the Assyrians and under a succession of rulers - Astyages, Cyrus (a Persian, the king of Anshan), then Cyrus's son Cambyses, then Darius, then Darius's son Xerxes - gradually extended the reach of the Persian empire from Mesopotamia and Babylon, to Egypt and Syria, Armenia and Bactria, all the way to Lydia and Ionia. The heart of the book focusses on Xerxes' attempt to cement his status as King of Kings by conquering the poor and mountainous Greek states. Notwithstanding his superior firepower, and his ability to draw soldiers from all his vassal states, it is ultimately the scrappy and bickering Greek states who manage to pull together to fight off the Persian threat.
I'm not sure why exactly I didn't love Persian Fire as much as Rubicon. Perhaps it was because like Rubicon, the cast of characters in Persian Fire and how they relate to one another was pretty confusing at times. Yet, unlike Rubicon, where there were characters I had heard about or learned about like Cicero, Julius Caesar and Pompey, most of the characters in Persian Fire were completely new to me. (I'm embarrassed to admit what little I knew about the Persians and Greeks came from reading about the movie 300, which centres on the battle between Xerxes' troops and the vastly outnumbered Spartan army at Thermopylae.) And being spatially challenged, I just found it tough to keep track of the numerous battles across the sprawling geography of the Persian empire.
Perhaps it was because I had vivid memories of visiting Rome and that somehow helped me connect with the narrative in Rubicon more intimately; but most of the places and sites mentioned in Persian Fire were unfamiliar and unknown to me.
Or perhaps it was really because I just didn't like where history was taking the book. That I found it hard to cheer for the scrappy Greek underdogs and the Athenians in particular who wanted to preserve their fledgeling democracy.
But like Rubicon, I loved the vivid descriptions that Holland gave of life in 5th century BC. His rich detailing of Spartan culture and life in particular, really helped my understand where the meaning of the term "spartan" comes from. Perhaps if I'd read Persian Fire before reading Rubicon, that might have changed my response to the book.