The Persian Wars may the most mythologized wars in the history of Western Civilization. Persian Fire is one of the best versions of this. It has a touch for poetry and grandeur of a sort that the subject deserves and gives a sweeping picture of the Ancient World. It's chief flaw is the author's curious taste for heavy-handed and rather tedious anti-Zoroastrian digs and the rather absurd implication that Xerxes really thought of himself as fighting a Parsee Holy War. But despite that weakness, it is a great book and well worth the read.

This was one of the most rivetting reads I have encountered in the field of popular history. I finally tackled it shortly after seeing the cartoon cut-out version of the film "300" for the first time, and actually found this more balanced account the more moving and fascinating. There can be no doubt about the unique symbolic significance of Thermopylae, which might have been made for cinema, but once one looks past the pro-Greek propaganda to try and see how the suicidal stand fits into the broader flow of the history of the time there is much to ponder.

Holland does justice to this richness and avoids a monochrome portrayal of "freedom" against "tyranny". Clearly there were great cultural riches on both sides, as well as great inspiration for totalitarian, industrial-era regimes. The Nazis understandably saw Sparta as a model society; the Persians issued ration chits to ducks being fattened for the royal table. (A duck was entitled to more wine per day than a young woman of low birth might be allocated per week.) Here are two models of the repressive state - one of patriotic submission to the state by the individual, one of pervasive and obsessive bureaucracy. On the other hand the Athenians brought us the concept of democracy, while the Persians freed the Jews from their captivity and tolerated all manner of religions in a way that the Mongols, and then the secular West, were to echo centuries later. So cartoon versions make for great cinema, but poor understanding. Holland sure-footedly avoids this more simplistic portrayal and still manages to create an exciting and fascinating read.

Here are some potential misconceptions which Holland clarifies for victims of Holywood's various references to Thermopylae:

Aristodemus was not half-blinded in battle but laid up by an eye infection along with one other man, the other of whom ordered a slave to lead him blind into battle and died there, against Leonidas' instructions. Aristodemus was condemned as a coward when he got back and forced to wear the patched cloak of the "trembler". When the army met the Persians a year later at Plataea he, alone of all the Spartans, broke formation and charged the enemy, redeeming himself from the charge of cowardice but proving himself to be deplorably excitable.

Plataea took nearly ten days, with the Spartans and Athenians holding their ground while being harried by Persian cavalry, until the Persians managed to destroy the water supply which they had left unguarded. The two groups got split up retreating to a new defensive position and the Persians, numbering about 80-100,000, took the opportunity to take on the Spartans alone, cavalry and light infantry against heavy hoplite infantry with at least a three-to-one advantage. The hoplites turned, formed up and slowly and systematically chopped the Persians into buzzard food over the course of a whole day. The Persian satrap got a rock in the head, his troops started to panic and by the end only about 3,000 survived. Then the Greeks went back to fighting each other.

Marathon and, primarily, Salamis were also decisive, with the Athenians at Salamis destroying a superior fleet by ambushing them in a narrow strait where the Persian's manoeuvrability was negated. Somewhat similar to Thermopylae, in fact, but with a more satisfactory outcome for the Greeks.

Oh, and the 300 did not die alone. The heroes of freedom were accompanied by about 1,000 helot slaves who were ordered to remain to the suicidal final stand.

One of these days I'll go and visit these places, carrying a copy of Herodotus. Until then, I'll be returning to this excellent book.

Holland's PERSIAN FIRE is the latest companion to Herodotus, reading similarly as good literature. The author carefully examines ancient sources, often balancing conflicting accounts. Playing legend against legend, comparing text against text, Holland incisively crafts the most plausible characters and events, and his subjects like Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes and Themistocles thus emerge far more realistically from their usual dim grandness. A historian for historians, Holland is a must read for Classical history courses on the sixth century BC emergence of Persia and the fifth century BC battles between Greece and Persia.

This is the best history book I have read in 10 years. Tom Holland takes the wispy threads of that time and knits a deep, rich tapestry that reads like a work of fiction. A very readable tale, it shows just how close we came to NOT having Western Civilization as we know it today. If you are a fan of the Spartans, don't read it. The truth about these people is very dark and unpleasant and not at all like the glorified computer enhanced film. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

This fine book tells the story of an earlier war between East and West. In the fifth century BC, a global superpower was determined to bring order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was Persia, the terrorist states Athens and Sparta. As Holland points out, "even the mightiest empires can suffer from overstretch."

He mordantly notes, with a passing hit at the British state's `special relationship' with the declining USA, "There was no greater source of self-contentment for a subject-nation, after all, and no surer badge of its continued servitude, than to imagine that it might have been graced with a special relationship with the king."

What were the circumstances that led up to the wars between Greece and Persia? In Tom Holland's Persian Fire, this question is answered with careful analysis and surprising clarity. The author gives Persia and Greece an equal survey of the two states' rise to power, making the reader clear as to how both civilizations regarded themselves and the world around them. Consequences are inevitably made clear throughout the book; Holland does an adequate job of relating one event to the other. Sources are many and varied for Persian Fire: Herodotus' Histories is a work often cited, and rarely examined Persian sources round out the presented material, with contradictions from previous Greek and Persian sources being explained as they are found along the way. Persian Fire is a book that will not disappoint those that want to know how the events of the Persian Wars came about and how they concluded.
The way Greece and Persia viewed themselves and how they may have regarded the world around them is important to know in understanding the conflict between the two great powers. Holland first examines the Persian Empire and its rise to prominence out of the Assyrian's former grip on the region. Persia's adherence to Ahura Mazda and the idea that Truth must prevail over the Great Lie is explained with clarity by Holland so that the reader understands Persia's priorities in its territories and abroad. Greece is given a thorough assessment from popular tyranny to the rise of a first democracy. Helpful in understanding Athens successful victory in the Battle of Marathon, Holland is precise in helping readers understand that democracy was something the Athenians felt was worth fighting for-this as opposed to a monarch, as in Persia's case. A way to make the reader understand why an event evolved the way it did is by explaining the relationship and consequences of the things that led up to that event, and here too Holland is successful.
Holland does not slack in making the consequences of certain events clear and how they might relate to the bigger picture. Seemingly minor events shape the course of history: the author is "great" at spending the whole introduction to a chapter discussing what appears to be quite arbitrary material, such as Themistocles' success in procuring the building of some two hundred ships for Athens. Only after a few pages does the reader discover-with triumphant joy that their time hasn't been completely wasted-that in fact the procurement of these ships was absolutely essential to the final outcome of the Persian Wars (221). It is with this clarity in showing the connection and relevance to the topic that is being discussed-the conflict between Greece and Persia-that the author is strongest; if one were to pick up this book with the sole purpose in understanding why the two powers went to war with each other then this book should prove informative. As good as Holland is at relating this period in time to readers, he is even better in providing useful and relevant notes to the material at the end of the book.
With any telling of history there must be the evidence to back it all up, and again Persian Fires proves successful. Either to extinguish fears of possible biases or simply to state the obvious, the author explains the trepidation in taking the primary sources as wholly accurate and takes on all his sources with a sense of speculation-both Greek and the limited Persian sources. Much of the material cited originates from Greek authors, and the "father of history" is ever present; many citations simply state, "see Herodotus..." The "Dream of Nabonidus," a newly used Persian source, is often cited and Holland is quick to elaborate on contradictions with Greek and other Persian sources (379). Especially helpful for any scholar are the occasional commentaries that accompany many of his endnotes: the blurry account of Bardiya's murder, which is appearantly surrounded in some debate, is exposed by the author and his perspective on what other sources tell of the event is illuminating (382).
Persian Fire is a delightful account of the wars between Greece and Persia. The material presented in the book is easily understood, in part because the author is quick to lay a solid foundation in which the Greek's and the Persian's worldviews are extensively explored. Holland is especially good at piecing together events that take place throughout the time period, with both the Greeks and the Persians, making it clear to the reader how it applies to the overall course of the conflict and its outcome. Sources and endnote commentary are extensive and well thought-out, providing some amount of reassurance to any reader wanting to know of the material's origins and its corroborations. To any who desire to know of one of the world's most-if not the-important conflicts in history, Persian Fire will prove to be an informative and enlightening account.

GREAT book!!! I have just now finished reading "Persian Fire" and already made plans to read it again! I have always thirsted after knowledge of this era and the author has brought it to life, entwining anecdotes about important personalities with historical context. Or, entwining historical record about the important personalities of the time. Take your choice. It reads like a novel ... no, better than a novel! Thank you Tom Holland.

This is a great book in every respect. Historically accurate and at the same time a pleasure to read. The book is a rigorous synthesis of knowledge sources which, synthesis, accounts for the relevant uncertainties in a systematic manner. Most impressive and didactic are the analogies drawn between the "then" and the "now". The book provides a deep analysis of historical events, makes some very interesting moral observations and does not hesitate to be even non-PC when the search of the Truth requires it. It takes lots of courage to use such an approach in these low times we live. Highly recommended!

Unlike many books on this topic, "Persian Fire" tries to take a balanced look at the conflict between the Persian empire and the Greek city states. One thing that I really appreciated is that the book starts not with the Ionian revolt, which is where many other books on the topic start, but with the rise of the Persian empire. Holland helps us to understand how the empire was created and what beliefs drove the Persian machine to take over the then known world. After showing how the Persian empire was established, Holland goes on to explain how the Spartan military dictatorship and Athenian democracy were developed, both of which were not so ancient at the time of the conflict. By setting up the background of the conflict in this way, you can gain a better understanding of why Athenians would stand up to a world power to protect their newly won freedoms, and how a Spartan government could laugh in the face of imperial might.

The book itself is written in an easy to read style and not at all academic as some other reviewers have mentioned. If you've read any history, you'll recognize it as an easy read. With the recent interest in this time period, this would make a great gift to those who are interested in the wars against the Persian empire.

I bought this book for two reasons; I wanted to know more about this period of history and I enjoyed Tom Holland's earlier book called "Rubicon" which is a narrative about the last days of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Empire.

In both books, Holland employs some tongue-in-cheek wit at appropriate moments as well as some of his own personal views on the subject. It is not too much that it becomes an opinion-based piece but just enough to keep his work from becomming dull textbooks.

Persian Fire is not as good as Rubicon for a couple of reasons. One of which is that he spends so much time discussing the history of the Persians, Spartans and Athenians and he doesn't get around to discussing the actual war until half-way into the book.

I also found myself having to go back several times to see who he was talking about because he would introduce several new and often obscure individuals and discuss them as if they were common knowledge. Not a problem if you are well versed in the ancient histories of Persia and Greece but difficult for anyone else.

The book is enjoyable in that he does go into depth about the various individuals and cultures but this is also at the expense at the bigger picture...the Persian War.

One of Holland's main themes is that this is the first clash between East and West and of course some people take offense to that just as they took offense to the movie 300. Well, history is never as clear-cut as some people make it but here Holland has it right. Western Culture traces it's roots back to the forms of government that the Greeks and Romans established which would not have been possible had the Persians won. Now Holland does not attempt to demonize the Persians and he is not a "xenophobe" as one reviewer wrote and it's popular these days to hurl such insults at people you disagree with but that's just no accurate. Holland is fair to all sides but let's be clear, the Persians were the aggressors in this case and it wasn't about spreading liberty or anything, it was simply raw power and control.

Anyway, to sum it all up. The book is not as easy to read as the official reviews would lead you to believe so this isn't for the casual reader, you'll become bored or confused. But if you want to really learn alot about this period of time, this might be your book.

Its a good book that keeps you interested however at the same time
it was a bit lengthy. But I do recommend it.

The book provides an in depth understanding of the conflicts that can oppose political centers and the creativity that is generated by conflict. It shows how historical past can provide a clear understanding of the present and a key for foreseeing the future.
The human nature and the conflicts of interest groups may have did not change much in 2500 years! The birth of democracy is as hypocritical today as it was in Athens 2500 years ago when we take under scrutiny modern countries in the throes of crossing over from tyranny to democracy; present day statesmen can be as treacherous as Themistocles!
And do not forget that 2500 years ago Persian oligarchs and dictators were invoquing the same mission given to them by God as present day ones do, and that goes for western leaders too.
A wonderfully written, masterfully narrated book a must for all thinkers.

I like my history books to be in third person, without the historian intruding much into it. I felt the start of this book was like a textbook where the teacher is concerned with inspiring the kids rather then teaching them and for that reason I did not give it a four stars. Having said that it is a good book and is well written.

From reading it, it appears that the Persians were in too much of a hurry as such they made mistakes. I think there is a lesson here for todays world when superpowers are looking for quick solutions to a problem.

In his new book, "Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West", Tom Holland performed something of a miracle. Working with the limited original documents that still exist, and extracting material from contemporaries of the events, Holland gives us a very clear picture of the events leading up to and including the clash between the Greeks and Persians. The sweep is enormous, and the cast of characters fascinating. The illustrations and maps that pepper the pages are a big help. This is a must read for anyone interested in history and culture.

I don't understand why history writers always have to use weird syntax, overly flowery vocabulary and awkward grammar. It makes it so difficult to get into a grove. This is a such a compelling subject but, Holland's narrative never takes off. There is plenty of background information about ancient Greek culture and Persian history. However, Holland falls short when trying to draw conclusions about impact and ramifications. The synopsis of the book misleads you into thinking that the book will provide insight into how this ancient history impacts us today, but it doesn't. It's straight up history. It's interesting history if you can stand the stuffy writing.

This is another great history written by Tom Holland, whose last production - Rubicon - covered the transition of Rome from Republic to Empire and also is excellent. Holland has a very conversational style (sometimes too conversational, as in using the word "f***" to describe sexual intercourse), that some will enjoy but some of the more serious mode will find annoying. The book includes many useful maps, interesting pictures, good notes, and a good reference to primary sources.

The book covers the rise of the Persian empire through the defeat at Salamis and Plataea. Very readable, engaging, and interesting. This is a great introduction to the subject and clearly shows the significance of the great battles between Greece and Persia and the origins of the Peloponnesian Wars, as well as the nature of the Greek city-states. If you were bored to incomprehension on this subject by wooden readings in high school, this is the perfect cure. They should assign this in high school instead.

I could not put this one down. This is an exceptionally well written and informative, factual narration free of cluttered commentary. Bravo!

Work was really well done. This book would give anyone a greater understanding of the complexities and cultural events of the day.

If you are interested in Persian and Greek history this is an excellent read. It is very well written and provides a number of good illustrations, photos and maps. The author has a very good writing voice and is entertaining.

this book is so good that if i could rate it 10 stars i would rate it 20

Tom Holland does a good job of summarizing what we know about the subject. If you have read Herodotus' "Persian War" or Plutarch's "Lives" or Thucidydes' "Peloponessian War" then you have the facts already. "Persian Fire" puts it all together into an entertaining and sometimes moving story. And let's face it, it is one of the world's great stories.

I kept handy my Times Atlas of World History and my Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia as I read it. There is also a lot of stuff on the net regarding the Persian Empire which will supplement Holland.

So why does he feel the need to use profanity to tell it? "S**t" and "f**k" have no place here. Those two words cost him a star, from me.

I feel the book would have benefitted from a deeper discussion of military matters. Just what was a "hoplite"? How was a phalanx made up? What means did they employ to fend off a cavalry charge?

I picked up a copy of "Rubicon" based on my enjoyment of this.

Tom Holland scored some major points with Rubicon, a terrific, narrative account of the fall of the Roman Republic. His clear prose, entertaining characterization and solid research and diverse use of sources can be apppreciated by all levels of readers. Holland may not have improved between his two books, but he certainly hasn't lost a step either. In Persian Fire, he recounts the rise of the Persian Empire and the revolutionary changes in Greek life, focusing on the late Archaic age in Sparta and Athens. I'm sure the point has been made before, but I like Holland's insistence that Marathon proved to be the first real test of the democracy of Athens. Holland traces their subsequent rise in prestige and the spread of democracy to this great victory over the hegemonic superpower of Persia. Holland's narrative is sleek, the various Athenian factions are (thankfully) clarified and the representation of the Persians is quite good. He tends to over-do his comparisons to the contemporary world, but overall, Holland treats my favorite historical event with his unique touch and has written a wonderfully accessible account of a stodgy, academic conflict. Well done, Tom.

This is the story of the world's first major empire and its collision with the West. The Persian Empire, founded by Cyrus the Great, stretched from deep into Egypt to the steppes of southern Russia and from modern-day Turkey to India. The Great King held sway over millions of subjects and saw it a duty to extend the benefits of Medo-Persian civilisation to the world, starting with the barbarians of Greece. The great stories receive a brilliant retelling - the Athenian triumph at Marathon against all the odds, the epic defence of Thermopylae by Leonidas of Sparta with a small company centred on his famous 300-strong bodyguard, the naval triumph against a vastly superior Persian fleet at Salamis and the final battle at Plataea where the cream of the Persian army perished against the fighting machine of Sparta.

These great stories occur in the latter part of the book; to get to them, you have to wade through the first part, where Mr. Holland sets the scene in detail, occasionally perhaps too great detail, and one (this one anyway) has to force oneself to push on. He delves into the early history of Greece and Persia in considerable detail. In the case of the Greeks especially, it becomes difficult, in a procession of strange Greek names, often quite similar, to remember who was who and who did what. Politics between Greek city states were also every bit as Byzantine as those of the later Greek empire of that name. However, if nothing else, it is a salutary reminder that, while technical means and capabilities have increased enormously, humanity hasn't changed at all. The book, while written with style and a nice, dry wit, occasionally tries to be too self-consciously literary. But these are minor quibbles. This is a book well worth reading.

A little more than a year ago, I read the Iliad for the first time as an adult, for no other reason than my own entertainment. I was at once bitten by the ancient Greek bug and set out to obtain the classical education I somehow missed in high school and college. I pursued this by taking a few Teaching Company audio courses, reading primary sources of the ancients -- Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides -- as well as the best popular and scholarly books I could find to elucidate the various eras of ancient Greek civilization. One of the latter certainly is Tom Holland's Persian Fire.

I came to Persian Fire with a decent background in the overall theme, and I read Herodotus in tandem with it through much of the book, but Holland's treatment enhanced everything I had absorbed prior because he approached the subject with a regional theme. It would be difficult to comprehend the foreign policy of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century without a fairly comprehensive background in the history of the Soviet Union; yet most historians of early fifth century Greece provide scant attention to the foe that most defined their political culture, the Persians they referred to sometimes pejoratively as "the Mede." Holland's work is superior from the get-go because he takes the regional approach most period treatments gloss over.

For those who want to delve right in to the Greco-Persian conflict, patience is in order as Holland sets the stage with an extremely well written background history not only of chief Hellenic city-states Athens and Sparta, but most importantly the origins of Persian rule -- and all of that takes us -- sometimes breathlessly with the gusto of a great author in love with his subject -- to an account of Mediterranean geo-politics on the eve of the conflict. I got more of the sense of the ancient world at the time from Holland than any other single work I had read previously.

Unlike many contemporary historians of the ancient world like Kagan, Holland deliberately avoids trying to fit the themes and the conflicts of 2500 years ago into today's foreign policies, but -- remarkably so -- he does manage to interpret the actions of the key players into the sometimes Machiavellian power politics characteristic of states throughout recorded history. No other work I have encountered brings marble figures like Themistocles and Aristides to flesh-and-blood life, warts and all, the way Holland does in this book.

A great read, in every way. Lots of material and not a boring spot in the story. I'll probably re-read it again someday. If you have any interest at all in the ancient Greek world, don't miss this one!

The book is thoroughly (I dare say) enteirtaining, in an old folks-tale kind of way, but I genuinely regert that it lacks scholarly value: It is a mere narration, not discussion or analysis.

It is disapointing that the likes of Mrs. Cross (see below review) are touched emotionally (it eclipses TRUE scholarly endeavors). What Mr. Holland or Mrs. Cross fail to mention is how the 300 Spartans held their slaves against their will to fight alongside them against Persia. I wonder if that is "valour", or "glory".

Perhaps if the tolerant Persia had fused with democratic-like Athens, the world would have been spared of the Athenian Empire, or even the merciless Rome.

A concise history of the Greco-Persian wars. Holland does a good job of intertwining the histories of Persia, Athens, and Sparta into a coherent narrative. While Greek history is a well-trodden path, I knew very little about the rise of the Persian Empire and was pleased to see Holland spend so much time on the subject. The other major strength of the book is the author's prose; he writes very well, making the work enjoyable as well as informative. Artfully done.

This very readable popular history of the 5th-century BC Persian Wars with Greece combines careful historical detective work with a sometimes breezy tone.

I enjoyed this book probably about as much as I enjoyed Holland's "Rubicon"--which is to say, quite a lot. It is solid, credibly researched history as it might be presented by a tabloid journalist: cynical, gossipy, and salted liberally with salacious or incriminating nuggets about its many characters. It is intended for a general audience, not an academic one, and it succeeds very well.

The book has an unusual but well-considered structure. Holland starts off by describing the societies of the protagonists, devoting his opening chapters to Mesopotamia, Iran, Sparta, and Athens. He does an excellent job of showing how different these worlds were from each other, and gives a strong flavor of how their inhabitants thought and behaved. That done, Holland moves on to the wars themselves, with accounts of the campaigns leading to the famous battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis, which we are now in a position to appreciate much better, knowing something of the outlook and worldview of the different players.

Holland's drive to tell a seamless story has him solving all kinds of problems of conflicts in the sources, drawing canny conclusions from wispy or contradictory data. Only occasionally does he draw attention to his reasoning; mostly it is part of the work underlying the flow of his story. And his story does flow.

Sometimes I found that Holland had laid the cynicism on a bit thick. While of course the ancient world, including among its heroes, had its share of scheming, selfish, greedy, backstabbing blowhards, some of the people must have exhibited more noble qualities at least sometimes. You wouldn't know it from reading Holland.

But I get a sense that all this is done with a twinkle in Holland's eye. As though taking such liberties were part of the fun available to the ancient historian, whose subjects (and their families) are many centuries past being able to take legal action. Holland's mission appears to be to make ancient history relevant, interesting, and most of all fun to a wide contemporary audience, and any peccadilloes of scholarly balance are a small price to pay for this bigger prize.

Holland makes the ancient world a very human, indeed an all too human, place. The portentous theme of East vs. West he handles with a light touch. In many other ways too he shows respect for the intelligence of the reader, who, while being fed heaping portions of gossip about our ancestors, is perhaps learning more than he or she realizes.

If you're interested in the history of ancient Greece, but are new to the subject, you could do a lot worse than reading this book.

OK, Tom Holland gets my vote for fun and read-able history. Although he is not good enough for some of the other reviewers, he is a godsend for the regular guy. For example, he can take an historical event like the Battle of Salamis and rachet up the tension and drama to the point where you feel like you are reading about it in this morning's newspaper. That said, you need to know your Punic from your Peloponnesian War, your Samos from your Lesbos, and your Darius from you Xerxes in order to fully enjoy this account, In that sense Tom Holland's PERSIAN FIRE is probably too middlebrow for the scholar and too complicated for the novice. But boy O boy he he fun for the rest of us.
In a world where the East rubs up against the West he can fill in the historical blanks that still bedevil us to this day. And today it still seems to me that we are living in the same battle of the past (East) versus the future (West). PERSIAN FIRE sets todays headlines, in some respects, against a 2500 year old backdrop. As we might watch the CBS news, the Athenians, in the shadow of their burned and gutted Acropolis, would watch the young buck playwright, Aeschylus, stage THE PERSIANS one year after the exhausted Greeks had won the war and returned to the abandoned Athens.
Spartans, that weird and long-haired race of warriors, get their fair share of exposure but lose some of their mystique in Holland's re-telling of Thermopylae and the Spartan king's last stand.

The bottom line is that I like my history books to try and be as exciting as the actual events they describe. Tom Holland fits the bill perfectly. This stands with RUBICON, his earlier effort, as one of my favorite history books. For the scholarly historians, well, I just want to reassure them that this book will push me toward a deeper exploration of ancient Greece, not drive me away. And for that, a tip of the helmet is due to Tom Holland

Very disappointed in the book. Too much drama & not enough history. Felt like I was reading the script from a made for TV docudrama.