Clashes of the titans
The battle of Marathon, claimed 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, was more important to English history than the battle of Hastings. The idea that great events of the ancient world were directly relevant to the modern has long been a mainstay of European culture. And few such events could compare with the epic struggle between the Greek city-states and Persia, the world’s first superpower.
This idea underpins Stephen P Kershaw’s retelling of the expeditions of the Persian king Darius in 490 BC and his son Xerxes a decade later. He has produced a book that is often elegant in style but remains clear, concise and eminently readable. His knowledge of the sources is generally excellent, and he supplements the narrative with archaeological, artistic and topographical details that add colour and perspective.
His discussions are often very perceptive: passages on the Trojan War, the Scythians and Greek warfare are informative and accessible, while the account of Marathon is a highlight of the book. Elsewhere, though, Kershaw has a tendency to simply repeat the ancient sources, with his usual healthy scepticism relegated to the endnotes. The chapter on Sparta is rather clichéd, while the Persians appear as little more than the hubristic dullards of the later, post-Herodotus Greek imagination. We gain no sense of the why or wherefore of their actions beyond a “gratuitous expansionism”.
Rather than focus on the titular “three epic battles” of Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis, -ershaw actually places five major clashes into the wider context. Likewise, the premise of “saving democracy” appears only in the occasional touch of hyperbole. When the Athenian democracy itself is relevant, Kershaw explains the significance but does not allow it to dominate the narrative. This is wise, because the premise of the title is tendentious at best. In this sense, Kershaw’s telling of the tale is better than the name of his book would imply.