What do you think?
Rate this book
Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy
The epic true story of Themistocles and the Battle of Salamis, and a rousing history of the world's first dominant navy and the towering empire it built.
The Athenian Navy was one of the finest fighting forces in the history of the world. It engineered a civilization, empowered the world's first democracy, and led a band of ordinary citizens on a voyage of discovery that altered the course of history. With Lords of the Sea, renowned archaeologist John R. Hale presents, for the first time, the definitive history of the epic battles, the fearsome ships, and the men – from extraordinary leaders to seductive rogues – that established Athens's supremacy. With a scholar's insight and a storyteller's flair, Hale takes us on an unforgettable voyage with these heroes, their turbulent careers, and far-flung expeditions, bringing back to light a forgotten maritime empire and its majestic legacy.
The Athenian Navy was one of the finest fighting forces in the history of the world. It engineered a civilization, empowered the world's first democracy, and led a band of ordinary citizens on a voyage of discovery that altered the course of history. With Lords of the Sea, renowned archaeologist John R. Hale presents, for the first time, the definitive history of the epic battles, the fearsome ships, and the men – from extraordinary leaders to seductive rogues – that established Athens's supremacy. With a scholar's insight and a storyteller's flair, Hale takes us on an unforgettable voyage with these heroes, their turbulent careers, and far-flung expeditions, bringing back to light a forgotten maritime empire and its majestic legacy.
395 pages, Hardcover
First published April 4, 2009
About the author
John R. Hale
23 books37 followersAlso known as J.R. Hale.
Sir John Rigby Hale FBA (17 September 1923 – 12 August 1999) was a British historian and translator, best known for his Renaissance studies.
Hale was born in Ashford, Kent. He was educated at Jesus College, Oxford (B.A., 1948, M.A., 1953). He also attended Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University (1948–49).
He was a Fellow of the British Academy and Emeritus Professor of Italian History at University College, London, where he was head of the Italian Department from 1970 until his retirement in 1988. His first position was as Fellow and Tutor in Modern History at Jesus College, Oxford, from 1949 to 1964. After this he became the first Professor of History at Warwick University where he remained till 1970. He taught at a number of other universities including Cornell and the University of California.
He was a Trustee of the National Gallery, London, from 1973 to 1980, becoming Chairman from 1974. He was made a Knight Bachelor on 20 August 1984.
In 1992, he suffered a severe stroke that caused aphasia. He died seven years later in Twickenham, after which his wife, the journalist Sheila Hale, wrote a book about his final years titled The Man Who Lost His Language.
Sir John Rigby Hale FBA (17 September 1923 – 12 August 1999) was a British historian and translator, best known for his Renaissance studies.
Hale was born in Ashford, Kent. He was educated at Jesus College, Oxford (B.A., 1948, M.A., 1953). He also attended Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University (1948–49).
He was a Fellow of the British Academy and Emeritus Professor of Italian History at University College, London, where he was head of the Italian Department from 1970 until his retirement in 1988. His first position was as Fellow and Tutor in Modern History at Jesus College, Oxford, from 1949 to 1964. After this he became the first Professor of History at Warwick University where he remained till 1970. He taught at a number of other universities including Cornell and the University of California.
He was a Trustee of the National Gallery, London, from 1973 to 1980, becoming Chairman from 1974. He was made a Knight Bachelor on 20 August 1984.
In 1992, he suffered a severe stroke that caused aphasia. He died seven years later in Twickenham, after which his wife, the journalist Sheila Hale, wrote a book about his final years titled The Man Who Lost His Language.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 168 reviews
March 28, 2016
I think I would best calssify this book as light historical reading. Hale writes in a very accessible, if plain, manner drawing the reader into the story of the ancient Athenian navy by concentrating on the personalities of the age and how they impacted the Athenian fleet. Battles were described in a way that was both descriptive but not bogged down in minutia. Hale was not afraid to use maps to illustrate battles or political relations, something more history books ought to do and he provides a wonderful timeline and glossary in the back of the book. This book was certainly intended for those somewhat unfamiliar with the times and Hale makes every effort to ensure the reader doesn't get lost.
The history of the Athenian navy itself was quite fascinating. Unlike an army, the development and maintenance of a fleet requires a large investment to initiate and high annual costs to maintain. Unlike an army where the individual soldiers can mostly provide their own gear for war, a navy requires a port infrastructure, skilled laborers to build and fix ships, the acquisition of a wide variety of materials, and hundreds of trained men to successfully and effectively operate just one trireme. This sort of effort requires a sustained political commitment both by the rulers of a state and its citizens. It costs a lot, but if you control the seas in the ancient world you have a lot of flexibility in both war and peace.
It was fascinating to see how the Athenian democracy changed over the course of this book. At the beginning they were a pretty traditional Greek city state, albeit a smallish one with little to make it stand out from the rest. But with the investment of men and material in the navy they took on a new form. With the successful repelling of the Persians thanks to the "wooden wall" if Athenian ships they began to build a league of alliance with other Greek city states. This alliance eventually developed into a empire with Athens demanding tribute from their client states and trying to expand their influence as far as Egypt and the Black Sea.
After finding so much success they became arrogant behind their walls and fleet, challenging the might of Sparta and her allies. Eventually, like a good Greek tragedy, their hubris brought them low as their advantage on the seas was degraded by smart Spartan leadership, Persian money, the plague, and too many years of losses. But even being brought low by the Spartans after the Peloponnesian War did not permanently cripple the Athenian democracy or navy. It took the might of the Macedonians to finally quench the torch that was Athenian democracy and naval supremacy.
Hale does an excellent job showing how Greek politics influence the navy and how the navy enabled Athenian policy at home and abroad. Hale shows us the key personalities that drove these policies and explains why they acted the way they did. He also offers an excellent window into Athenian culture and life. While I knew the Greeks loved their plays, I was unaware of both their popularity and just how political they were. The Greeks were also extremely superstitious, to their own detriment on many occasions (stupid eclipses), and their beliefs informed their own policies and strategies. Also the Athenian democracy had some pretty ugly warts, be it allowing the rise of Trump-like demagogues or punishing unsuccessful military leaders with death or exile. I thought Hale very clearly laid out the strengths and weakness of Athens as well as why they eventually failed.
I did think the book fell short in a few areas. Where Athenian victories got a decent explanation and description, their defeats mostly amounted to "and the Athenians were defeated in the subsequent naval battle". I also thought Hale came up short in tying the Athenian navy to Athenian democracy. It is certainly true that on several occasions they extended citizenship to any slave of freeman who was willing to row for the fleet, but the institution of democracy didn't seems a closely tied to the navy as the title might suggest.
Still, it was a very engaging and informative read, great for people who want a good entry point into ancient Greece.
The history of the Athenian navy itself was quite fascinating. Unlike an army, the development and maintenance of a fleet requires a large investment to initiate and high annual costs to maintain. Unlike an army where the individual soldiers can mostly provide their own gear for war, a navy requires a port infrastructure, skilled laborers to build and fix ships, the acquisition of a wide variety of materials, and hundreds of trained men to successfully and effectively operate just one trireme. This sort of effort requires a sustained political commitment both by the rulers of a state and its citizens. It costs a lot, but if you control the seas in the ancient world you have a lot of flexibility in both war and peace.
It was fascinating to see how the Athenian democracy changed over the course of this book. At the beginning they were a pretty traditional Greek city state, albeit a smallish one with little to make it stand out from the rest. But with the investment of men and material in the navy they took on a new form. With the successful repelling of the Persians thanks to the "wooden wall" if Athenian ships they began to build a league of alliance with other Greek city states. This alliance eventually developed into a empire with Athens demanding tribute from their client states and trying to expand their influence as far as Egypt and the Black Sea.
After finding so much success they became arrogant behind their walls and fleet, challenging the might of Sparta and her allies. Eventually, like a good Greek tragedy, their hubris brought them low as their advantage on the seas was degraded by smart Spartan leadership, Persian money, the plague, and too many years of losses. But even being brought low by the Spartans after the Peloponnesian War did not permanently cripple the Athenian democracy or navy. It took the might of the Macedonians to finally quench the torch that was Athenian democracy and naval supremacy.
Hale does an excellent job showing how Greek politics influence the navy and how the navy enabled Athenian policy at home and abroad. Hale shows us the key personalities that drove these policies and explains why they acted the way they did. He also offers an excellent window into Athenian culture and life. While I knew the Greeks loved their plays, I was unaware of both their popularity and just how political they were. The Greeks were also extremely superstitious, to their own detriment on many occasions (stupid eclipses), and their beliefs informed their own policies and strategies. Also the Athenian democracy had some pretty ugly warts, be it allowing the rise of Trump-like demagogues or punishing unsuccessful military leaders with death or exile. I thought Hale very clearly laid out the strengths and weakness of Athens as well as why they eventually failed.
I did think the book fell short in a few areas. Where Athenian victories got a decent explanation and description, their defeats mostly amounted to "and the Athenians were defeated in the subsequent naval battle". I also thought Hale came up short in tying the Athenian navy to Athenian democracy. It is certainly true that on several occasions they extended citizenship to any slave of freeman who was willing to row for the fleet, but the institution of democracy didn't seems a closely tied to the navy as the title might suggest.
Still, it was a very engaging and informative read, great for people who want a good entry point into ancient Greece.
May 8, 2020
Why does this make the top 10 lists of books on naval strategy? Money are the sinews of war & Athens is a prime example of the logistical demands to keep up a fleet, while the financial demands of its maritime empire led to its demise. Its politics were too predatory, its strategy too irregular because of a leadership based on popularity in the hour of greatest need, but so unrewarding for most even victorious commanders that Persia's career opportunities triggered a brain drain.
Between the brilliant tactical exposition of naval battles and the crystal accompanying maps, there is, as befits classical Greece, room to linger and marvel at household names such as Pericles and Aristophanes, whose contributions to the Acropolis monuments and drama are often unlinked from the contemporary political trends they reflected.
Democracy comes at a curious angle: while the show was still run by the elite, the manpower needs of the Piraeus squadrons invested "trireme democracy" in its rowers, a trend occasionally attacked by oligarchs.
As for the overarching Persian and Peloponnesian War, Hale puts the details in "Xerxes fought a long way from home" and is a lot easier to digest than his mentor Donald Kagan on Syracuse and Sparta (it had a fleet too, who knew?)
Between the brilliant tactical exposition of naval battles and the crystal accompanying maps, there is, as befits classical Greece, room to linger and marvel at household names such as Pericles and Aristophanes, whose contributions to the Acropolis monuments and drama are often unlinked from the contemporary political trends they reflected.
Democracy comes at a curious angle: while the show was still run by the elite, the manpower needs of the Piraeus squadrons invested "trireme democracy" in its rowers, a trend occasionally attacked by oligarchs.
As for the overarching Persian and Peloponnesian War, Hale puts the details in "Xerxes fought a long way from home" and is a lot easier to digest than his mentor Donald Kagan on Syracuse and Sparta (it had a fleet too, who knew?)
August 31, 2015
Wie alt warst Du, als die Perser kamen?
Kreta, auf dem ich dieses Jahr erneut Urlaub gemacht habe, ist eine Insel: Da denkt man automatisch an meeresverliebte Menschen, an minoische Seefahrer. Doch die modernen Kreter sind anders, landgebunden, meeresverachtend. Die traditionellen Kreter ziehen ins Landesinnere und pflanzen Olivenbäume, und wollen nichts mit dem Meer zu tun haben. Eine Ankedote, von unserem lokalen, auf Kreta aufgewachsenen Führer erzählt, illustriert das. Sein Vater, ebenso auf Kreta in einem Dorf nur ca. 20 Kilometer von der Küste geboren, hat das Meer zum ersten Mal im Alter von 18 Jahren gesehen. Er wusch seine Hände im Meer, schüttelte das Wasser ab, und ging wieder nach Hause zu seinen Olivenbäumen.
Die Athener waren zu Beginn etwas ähnlich veranlagt. Die Diskussion, ob es sich lohnt, auf eine Meeresstreitmacht zu setzen, konnte Themistokles nur durch einen Zufall, einen Silberfund, durchsetzen. Von da an aber war Athen eine "Stadt auf Schiffen", vom Meer verzaubert, freiwillig ans Meer gebunden, eine "Thalassokratie". Bis zu ihrem Aufgang in nachfolgenden Reichen war die Stadt Athen mit ihrer Flotte und Demokratie über 200 Jahre das strahlendste Kleinod des Mittelmeers, und eines, das selbst heute noch als Vorbild für uns dienen kann.
So eine Triere war die neue Superwaffe der Antike. Unglaublich schnell, agil, manövrierbar; dabei mit ihrer Hauptwaffe, dem Rammsporn, tödlich für andere Schiffe. Nichts konnte einer gut trainierten Schiffsdivision athenischer Schiffe widerstehen. Und in dieser Tradition, in der sich kein Athener zu schade war, auf den Ruderbänken platz zu nehmen (es gab keine Sklaven in antiken Trieren, das war eine mittelalterliche Neuerung und eine Ben-Hur-Film-Irrung), musste sich so etwas wie Mitspracherecht entwickeln.
Und kaum hatten die Athener sich mal an diese Form des Lebens gewöhnt, taten sie mit typisch griechischer Dickköpfigkeit alles dafür, es aufrecht zu erhalten.
Etwas, das man auch heute noch in Medien und Politik beobachten kann, ist die Tendenz, einst erfolgreiche und geliebte Führer schnell zu verdammen, sobald ihre Glückssträhne nachlässt. Die Begrenzung der Herrschaftszeit eines Anführers in modernen Demokratien hat schon ihren Grund; und den Athener Helden wäre es gut angestanden, ihren Zenit nicht zu überschreiten, denn wenn sie nicht freiwillig abtraten, tat es das Volk für sie - im besten Fall mit einfacher Verbannung aus der polis, im schlimmsten Fall durch mehr oder weniger erzwungenen Selbstmord mit dem Schierlingsbecher.
Dennoch bleibt ein ewiger Glanz auf diesen wenigen Generationen; die Namen der Helden überleben bis heute, und sie dienen trotz aller ihrer Mängel immer noch als Vorbilder für den Kampf für etwas, an das man glaubt.
Waren es die scheinbar unschlagbaren Gegner in Form der Perser und Spartaner, die dennoch bezwungen wurden, die diesen Glanz erzeugten? Die unüberwindbaren Schwierigkeiten im Bauen und Aufrechterhalten einer so teuren Streitmacht, die gemeistert wurden? Die inneren Widerstände, die Opposition, die gegen alles kämpfte, was Athen groß gemacht hatte, die leider am Ende gewann, aber einen harten Stand hatte?
Eine Beobachtung die heute, in Zeiten des Demokratieabbaus, gegen den sich niemand wirklich wehrt, da es uns allen scheinbar zu gut geht, eine besondere Aktualität gewinnt.
Nach dem Erfolg der Frank-Miller-Comicverfilmung "300" war Sparta eine Weile in aller Munde. Eine brutale Militärdiktatur, kulturverachtend, herrschsüchtig, gewaltbereit, die Bürger (wenn man sie überhaupt so nennen konnte) unterjochend - alle fanden es "cool" (mich erstmal eingeschlossen). Dennoch waren sie letztlich, obwohl es im Peloponnesischen Krieg erstmal eine Weile so aussah, als hätte Sparta die Oberhand, den Athenern unterlegen, deren Geist und Witz sie nie gewachsen waren.
Ich wäre froh, wenn es das kluge, strategische, clevere und edle Athen wäre, und nicht Sparta mit seinen hohlen pathetischen Kriegermythen, das mehr Aufmerksamkeit in der populären Medienwelt bekommen würde.
Kreta, auf dem ich dieses Jahr erneut Urlaub gemacht habe, ist eine Insel: Da denkt man automatisch an meeresverliebte Menschen, an minoische Seefahrer. Doch die modernen Kreter sind anders, landgebunden, meeresverachtend. Die traditionellen Kreter ziehen ins Landesinnere und pflanzen Olivenbäume, und wollen nichts mit dem Meer zu tun haben. Eine Ankedote, von unserem lokalen, auf Kreta aufgewachsenen Führer erzählt, illustriert das. Sein Vater, ebenso auf Kreta in einem Dorf nur ca. 20 Kilometer von der Küste geboren, hat das Meer zum ersten Mal im Alter von 18 Jahren gesehen. Er wusch seine Hände im Meer, schüttelte das Wasser ab, und ging wieder nach Hause zu seinen Olivenbäumen.
Die Athener waren zu Beginn etwas ähnlich veranlagt. Die Diskussion, ob es sich lohnt, auf eine Meeresstreitmacht zu setzen, konnte Themistokles nur durch einen Zufall, einen Silberfund, durchsetzen. Von da an aber war Athen eine "Stadt auf Schiffen", vom Meer verzaubert, freiwillig ans Meer gebunden, eine "Thalassokratie". Bis zu ihrem Aufgang in nachfolgenden Reichen war die Stadt Athen mit ihrer Flotte und Demokratie über 200 Jahre das strahlendste Kleinod des Mittelmeers, und eines, das selbst heute noch als Vorbild für uns dienen kann.
The beat of oars was the heartbeat of Athens in the city’s Golden Age.
So eine Triere war die neue Superwaffe der Antike. Unglaublich schnell, agil, manövrierbar; dabei mit ihrer Hauptwaffe, dem Rammsporn, tödlich für andere Schiffe. Nichts konnte einer gut trainierten Schiffsdivision athenischer Schiffe widerstehen. Und in dieser Tradition, in der sich kein Athener zu schade war, auf den Ruderbänken platz zu nehmen (es gab keine Sklaven in antiken Trieren, das war eine mittelalterliche Neuerung und eine Ben-Hur-Film-Irrung), musste sich so etwas wie Mitspracherecht entwickeln.
A naval tradition that depended on the muscles and sweat of the masses led inevitably to democracy: from sea power to democratic power. (...) Oars were great levelers. Rowing demanded perfect unison of action, and the discipline inevitably generated a powerful unity of spirit. Rich and poor shared the same callused palms, blistered buttocks, and stiff muscles, as well as the same hopes and fears for the future. A new unified Athens was being forged on the decks and rowing thwarts of the fleet.
Und kaum hatten die Athener sich mal an diese Form des Lebens gewöhnt, taten sie mit typisch griechischer Dickköpfigkeit alles dafür, es aufrecht zu erhalten.
What made the Spartans, Athenians, and others willing to fight? Part of the answer lay in a raw Greek spirit of independence, a fierce and fanatical zeal for liberty. Their rough and rocky land had bred a race of tough, self-reliant people. Greek cities were as obstinate as individual citizens in jealously guarding their freedom. For centuries this spirit had kept the Greeks divided against one another. Now at last it helped them unite against a common enemy.
Etwas, das man auch heute noch in Medien und Politik beobachten kann, ist die Tendenz, einst erfolgreiche und geliebte Führer schnell zu verdammen, sobald ihre Glückssträhne nachlässt. Die Begrenzung der Herrschaftszeit eines Anführers in modernen Demokratien hat schon ihren Grund; und den Athener Helden wäre es gut angestanden, ihren Zenit nicht zu überschreiten, denn wenn sie nicht freiwillig abtraten, tat es das Volk für sie - im besten Fall mit einfacher Verbannung aus der polis, im schlimmsten Fall durch mehr oder weniger erzwungenen Selbstmord mit dem Schierlingsbecher.
Only six years had passed since the victory at the Eurymedon River had seemingly put Cimon at the summit of Athens’ pantheon of heroes. His father, Miltiades, had suffered a similar fate within a year of his victory at Marathon. There was no question that the Athenians often dealt more harshly with their leaders than they did with their enemies. (...) One after another the heroes of Arginusae drank their vials of hemlock juice and departed this life.
Dennoch bleibt ein ewiger Glanz auf diesen wenigen Generationen; die Namen der Helden überleben bis heute, und sie dienen trotz aller ihrer Mängel immer noch als Vorbilder für den Kampf für etwas, an das man glaubt.
As youths many had taken the traditional oath: “I shall hand on my fatherland not less, but greater.” More than any other generation, these men had fulfilled that promise. (...) All those gifts of mind and spirit that set Athenians apart shone at their brightest in Phormio: optimism, energy, inventiveness, and daring; a determination to seize every chance and defy all odds; and the iron will to continue the fight even when all seemed lost—even when the enemy had already begun to celebrate their victory. For Phormio, it was never too late to win.
Waren es die scheinbar unschlagbaren Gegner in Form der Perser und Spartaner, die dennoch bezwungen wurden, die diesen Glanz erzeugten? Die unüberwindbaren Schwierigkeiten im Bauen und Aufrechterhalten einer so teuren Streitmacht, die gemeistert wurden? Die inneren Widerstände, die Opposition, die gegen alles kämpfte, was Athen groß gemacht hatte, die leider am Ende gewann, aber einen harten Stand hatte?
When the historian Thucydides recorded the people’s energetic response, he observed that democracies are always at their best when things seem at their worst.
Eine Beobachtung die heute, in Zeiten des Demokratieabbaus, gegen den sich niemand wirklich wehrt, da es uns allen scheinbar zu gut geht, eine besondere Aktualität gewinnt.
Nach dem Erfolg der Frank-Miller-Comicverfilmung "300" war Sparta eine Weile in aller Munde. Eine brutale Militärdiktatur, kulturverachtend, herrschsüchtig, gewaltbereit, die Bürger (wenn man sie überhaupt so nennen konnte) unterjochend - alle fanden es "cool" (mich erstmal eingeschlossen). Dennoch waren sie letztlich, obwohl es im Peloponnesischen Krieg erstmal eine Weile so aussah, als hätte Sparta die Oberhand, den Athenern unterlegen, deren Geist und Witz sie nie gewachsen waren.
The inexplicable failure of the Spartans to attack Athens immediately after this battle led Thucydides to dub them “quite the most convenient enemies that the Athenians could possibly have had.”
Ich wäre froh, wenn es das kluge, strategische, clevere und edle Athen wäre, und nicht Sparta mit seinen hohlen pathetischen Kriegermythen, das mehr Aufmerksamkeit in der populären Medienwelt bekommen würde.
June 19, 2013
Hale's Lords of the Sea is the history of the Athenian navy. Pretty straightforward, so this will be a fairly short review. The book is extremely readable, and it wasn't necessary to drag my feet through tons of horribly academic language. It moves at a fairly good pace, and only uses 318 pages to cover hundreds of years of history, so there isn't a lot of pointless detail.
However.
Hale is very obviously in love with the Athenian navy and credits it with every single advancement Athens made. He credits the NAVY with the BIRTH OF DEMOCRACY even when Athens was a democracy BEFORE the navy! He also glorifies it to the point that he ends up glorifying war. A good chunk of the book takes place during the Pelopponesian War, and he makes it seem like a paddle around the pond for Athens, when in fact the the Athenians and Spartans spent most of the war torturing each other and dying in terrible ways. These are entirely glossed over or ignored in favor of relating the detailed plots of some of the plays that were written--and not all of those were about the sea or the navy. If you're going to include plays, Hale, you should probably have thought to include Lysistrata, the one about how the Pelopponesian War was so horrible and caused so many deaths that the women of Greece refused to have sex with their husbands until the men ended the war, because the women didn't want to lose anymore family members. (This was, by the way, fiction; no such sex strike ever took place, to my knowledge.) That seems a bit more important than a farmer flying to Olympus on a dung beetle.
There also seems to be some extrapolation; Hale often puts words or thoughts into Greek mouths, or records actions that I very much doubt were recorded.
Overall, a readable book, but Hale's love of the navy has obviously blinded him to other important aspects of Greek life, and this should be read with a heart dose of salt.
However.
Hale is very obviously in love with the Athenian navy and credits it with every single advancement Athens made. He credits the NAVY with the BIRTH OF DEMOCRACY even when Athens was a democracy BEFORE the navy! He also glorifies it to the point that he ends up glorifying war. A good chunk of the book takes place during the Pelopponesian War, and he makes it seem like a paddle around the pond for Athens, when in fact the the Athenians and Spartans spent most of the war torturing each other and dying in terrible ways. These are entirely glossed over or ignored in favor of relating the detailed plots of some of the plays that were written--and not all of those were about the sea or the navy. If you're going to include plays, Hale, you should probably have thought to include Lysistrata, the one about how the Pelopponesian War was so horrible and caused so many deaths that the women of Greece refused to have sex with their husbands until the men ended the war, because the women didn't want to lose anymore family members. (This was, by the way, fiction; no such sex strike ever took place, to my knowledge.) That seems a bit more important than a farmer flying to Olympus on a dung beetle.
There also seems to be some extrapolation; Hale often puts words or thoughts into Greek mouths, or records actions that I very much doubt were recorded.
Overall, a readable book, but Hale's love of the navy has obviously blinded him to other important aspects of Greek life, and this should be read with a heart dose of salt.
July 24, 2011
First, get the slaves to dig up the silver at Laurium, then build a fleet, bully your neighbors and become a great democracy! (or, as my HIST 312 students know full well, maybe not).
January 4, 2023
How did Athens gain and lose power in Greece?
I read Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy 12 years ago (4-Jan-2011). I was of course aware of Athens as one of the first democracies (debatable, of course, but that's what their advertising claimed). And of course it's famous for such philosophers as Plato and Socrates. I knew that at Salamis (the harbor town of Athens) one of the most important sea battles of history was won. I have even read the books of Xenophon and Thucydides. I had thus managed to delude myself into believing I understood something of Athenian history.
I was mistaken! Historian and Archaeologist John R. Hale tells the story of how Athens rose to power because of the strength of its navy. And eventually fell from power. Oared ships underlay the power that supported the Greatest Hits I listed above. The Battle of Salamis is described well here.
Blog review.
I read Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy 12 years ago (4-Jan-2011). I was of course aware of Athens as one of the first democracies (debatable, of course, but that's what their advertising claimed). And of course it's famous for such philosophers as Plato and Socrates. I knew that at Salamis (the harbor town of Athens) one of the most important sea battles of history was won. I have even read the books of Xenophon and Thucydides. I had thus managed to delude myself into believing I understood something of Athenian history.
I was mistaken! Historian and Archaeologist John R. Hale tells the story of how Athens rose to power because of the strength of its navy. And eventually fell from power. Oared ships underlay the power that supported the Greatest Hits I listed above. The Battle of Salamis is described well here.
Blog review.
September 20, 2009
Hale has written an engaging history of the Athenian navy during its period of power, from when Themistocles convinced the Athenians to use a silver strike in 483 BC to build the fleet that stopped the Persians until a later Athenian fleet surrendered to the Macedonians after trifling resistance in 322. I think we sometimes get the idea that the Athenian navy did little of note outside of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, but their other wars were also important, lacking only their Herodotus or Thucydides to give us a compelling account. For instance, a 300-ship fleet sailed to Egypt in the 450s to aid a revolt against the Persions, and it was destroyed. Who knew? The decisive Athenian defeat by the Spartans in 404, which at the time seemed like the End of Everything, turned out to be but a blip in the history of their navy; they were a power again by 378.
Criticisms: A lot of this history concerns general Athenian politics and its influence on naval matters. I suppose that's because of the lack of good sources on strictly naval affairs. Hale does not warn the reader (except in an endnote) that his reconstruction of the Battle of Salamis is not universally accepted. He has the Persian fleet forming up parallel to the Attic shore and facing the Greeks along the opposite shore. I think the more common opinion is that the Persions formed a line across the straight, at right angles to the shores, which nullified the great Persian advantage in numbers. In Hale's recontruction, it is hard to understand not only why the Persians did not envelope the Greek line, but also why their defeated right wing would attempt to escape by sailing several miles behind the rest of the line towards the Piraeus, rather that running to the Persian-held shore immediately behind them. How many other dubious reconstructions have been presented as fact in this book? The reader should be advised about what is known vs. what is guessed.
And now for a pet peeve: Hale has become convinced that the triremes of this era were rowed with a sliding seat (illustration on p. 41). This highly dubious idea is inconsequential to his tale, but it still bugs the hell out of me. He justifies this with three illustrations from ancient sources, showing rowers with knees bent at the catch (A), knees partially bent during the drive (B), and knees straight at the finish (C). The ancient pictures, from three different times and places, in fact show the opposite of what Hale claims. (A) indeed shows knees bent at the catch, but it is not of a trireme, and a similar pottery fragment from c750 BC shows knees bent at the finish (The Age of the Galley, ed. Robert Gardiner, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1995, p. 41). Also, the spacing between the rowers shows no room to slide back. Apparently some early galleys had shallow draft and the rowers sat with bent knees. (B) shows the one rower from the famous Lenormant Relief (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...) whose knees are raised; the other seven very plainly have their thighs perfectly horizontal in the drive, and so are clearly not sliding. The bent-kneed rower is simply sitting over a cross-piece. Also, there is again no room for the rowers to slide. Finally, (C) is from a 700 BC potsherd (ibid., p. 27, mirror-imaged), 300 years before the Lenormant Relief and centuries before triremes. The rowers are only shown from the hips up; it's not clear how straight their knees are. It is clear that there is no room between them for a sliding seat.
Criticisms: A lot of this history concerns general Athenian politics and its influence on naval matters. I suppose that's because of the lack of good sources on strictly naval affairs. Hale does not warn the reader (except in an endnote) that his reconstruction of the Battle of Salamis is not universally accepted. He has the Persian fleet forming up parallel to the Attic shore and facing the Greeks along the opposite shore. I think the more common opinion is that the Persions formed a line across the straight, at right angles to the shores, which nullified the great Persian advantage in numbers. In Hale's recontruction, it is hard to understand not only why the Persians did not envelope the Greek line, but also why their defeated right wing would attempt to escape by sailing several miles behind the rest of the line towards the Piraeus, rather that running to the Persian-held shore immediately behind them. How many other dubious reconstructions have been presented as fact in this book? The reader should be advised about what is known vs. what is guessed.
And now for a pet peeve: Hale has become convinced that the triremes of this era were rowed with a sliding seat (illustration on p. 41). This highly dubious idea is inconsequential to his tale, but it still bugs the hell out of me. He justifies this with three illustrations from ancient sources, showing rowers with knees bent at the catch (A), knees partially bent during the drive (B), and knees straight at the finish (C). The ancient pictures, from three different times and places, in fact show the opposite of what Hale claims. (A) indeed shows knees bent at the catch, but it is not of a trireme, and a similar pottery fragment from c750 BC shows knees bent at the finish (The Age of the Galley, ed. Robert Gardiner, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1995, p. 41). Also, the spacing between the rowers shows no room to slide back. Apparently some early galleys had shallow draft and the rowers sat with bent knees. (B) shows the one rower from the famous Lenormant Relief (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...) whose knees are raised; the other seven very plainly have their thighs perfectly horizontal in the drive, and so are clearly not sliding. The bent-kneed rower is simply sitting over a cross-piece. Also, there is again no room for the rowers to slide. Finally, (C) is from a 700 BC potsherd (ibid., p. 27, mirror-imaged), 300 years before the Lenormant Relief and centuries before triremes. The rowers are only shown from the hips up; it's not clear how straight their knees are. It is clear that there is no room between them for a sliding seat.
November 9, 2015
This is an excellent little work on the West's first true Naval power. Following, and significantly improving upon and technologically advancing, the naval traditions of the Minoans, the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, the Athenians would build the first professional Navy in Western History.
Forced upon Athens, formerly having relied upon Hoplite phalanxes for its military defense, the building of a fleet was in response to the overwhelming threat from the massive Persian Empire. In the ensuing Persian Wars the Athenians, and their new Navy, would forever halt the advance of Persian power, and spell the beginning of that great empires eventual downfall. However, as often happens, this nation would, in turn, even while mouthing the platitudes of democracy and liberty, become an empire in itself. An empire based and built upon Naval power.
The Athenian ships crews were all freedmen, not slaves as many assumed, and they were paid for their services. And all of them partook in the voting assembly's of the Demos, the Athenian Democracy. Sometimes, in fact, it would be the common crew who would cast the deciding votes for armed intervention or expansionist designs. Nowhere else in the Ancient world was this done.
However, like all empires, it had a limited shelf life. Jealousy from neighbors as well as Athenian abuses of their own power ensured revolts against their two great Maritime Leagues. Revolts the democratic Athenians brutally, and bloodily, crushed. Also competition with Sparta and Corinth lead to the apocalypse that was the Peloponnesian Wars. Athens would lose the war, but would, in short time, rise from the ashes of defeat to, once again, exert their influence and maritime power over the Aegean Sea.
Then Macedon and Philip and his son Alexander would end it for good.
All in all this was a very good, well written, book on an overlooked aspect of the Greek world: the Athenian Navy. About the only controversial contention the author makes is that the Navy, by extension at least, was responsible for the Golden Age of Athens. I defend the authors conclusions.
Navy's tend to rise from mercantile peoples. The act of moving trade goods be sea inspires piracy. Piracy inspires a military response to defend said commerce, hence Navies are born. This naval power allows for further and further trade via convoys. This brings into reach larger portions of the world, and invites the influence and contact of foreign cultures. This not only diversifies trade, which generates new wealth, but it also creates a sophistication among the trading cultures as they also culturally trade among each other. This sophistication is translated into the military, commerce, the arts, literature, fashion, even culinary choices. It molds everything about the society it touches. In short, naval power is transformative.
On this basis, I feel the authors thesis is a sound one.
The book is also filled with tales of great battles, heroic and dastardly commanders and captains, even a few cowards, and is also a great story of the rise, and fall, of Athens itself.
All in all, as a great introduction to Naval and Maritime history, as well as a bit of an introduction to Naval theory, this is a very good book. Highly recommended.
Forced upon Athens, formerly having relied upon Hoplite phalanxes for its military defense, the building of a fleet was in response to the overwhelming threat from the massive Persian Empire. In the ensuing Persian Wars the Athenians, and their new Navy, would forever halt the advance of Persian power, and spell the beginning of that great empires eventual downfall. However, as often happens, this nation would, in turn, even while mouthing the platitudes of democracy and liberty, become an empire in itself. An empire based and built upon Naval power.
The Athenian ships crews were all freedmen, not slaves as many assumed, and they were paid for their services. And all of them partook in the voting assembly's of the Demos, the Athenian Democracy. Sometimes, in fact, it would be the common crew who would cast the deciding votes for armed intervention or expansionist designs. Nowhere else in the Ancient world was this done.
However, like all empires, it had a limited shelf life. Jealousy from neighbors as well as Athenian abuses of their own power ensured revolts against their two great Maritime Leagues. Revolts the democratic Athenians brutally, and bloodily, crushed. Also competition with Sparta and Corinth lead to the apocalypse that was the Peloponnesian Wars. Athens would lose the war, but would, in short time, rise from the ashes of defeat to, once again, exert their influence and maritime power over the Aegean Sea.
Then Macedon and Philip and his son Alexander would end it for good.
All in all this was a very good, well written, book on an overlooked aspect of the Greek world: the Athenian Navy. About the only controversial contention the author makes is that the Navy, by extension at least, was responsible for the Golden Age of Athens. I defend the authors conclusions.
Navy's tend to rise from mercantile peoples. The act of moving trade goods be sea inspires piracy. Piracy inspires a military response to defend said commerce, hence Navies are born. This naval power allows for further and further trade via convoys. This brings into reach larger portions of the world, and invites the influence and contact of foreign cultures. This not only diversifies trade, which generates new wealth, but it also creates a sophistication among the trading cultures as they also culturally trade among each other. This sophistication is translated into the military, commerce, the arts, literature, fashion, even culinary choices. It molds everything about the society it touches. In short, naval power is transformative.
On this basis, I feel the authors thesis is a sound one.
The book is also filled with tales of great battles, heroic and dastardly commanders and captains, even a few cowards, and is also a great story of the rise, and fall, of Athens itself.
All in all, as a great introduction to Naval and Maritime history, as well as a bit of an introduction to Naval theory, this is a very good book. Highly recommended.
May 12, 2012
The title and back cover initially led me to believe LORDS OF THE SEA was an analysis of how the ancient Athenians’ decision to "navalize" ultimately led to adoption of democratic government. Instead of analysis, per se, the author, John Hale, embraced a more chronological, narrative-history approach. In so doing, he employs the novelist’s method of "showing, rather than telling" how naval expansion politically empowered the middle and lower classes of Athens.
That the author uses a novelistic effect is not at all meant as criticism. Hale’s writing is gripping and evocative. He makes you feel as though you’re actually sailing "the wine-dark sea," the foam of waves splashing your face as you sit on the prow of an Athenian warship, the "trireme."
As with many books that cover this period, LORDS OF THE SEA, while ostensibly focused on naval history, is in truth a good overall history of Athens during its golden age——from the victory against the Persians, through the Peloponnesian Wars, until Alexander of Macedon brought the end of democracy and instituted an age of kings. All the major developments of the period are given fresh treatment, and the individuals who dominated that era——Themistocles, Pericles, Cleon, Alcibiades, Demosthenes, and others——come alive.
When discussing the history of ancient Athens, the Peloponnesian War naturally looms large. Indeed, about two-thirds of the book is about that "Greek world war." This massive conflict exerts such a hold on my imagination that, every time I read about it, I find myself rooting for the Athenians, even though I already know the eventual, dismal outcome.
One final observation: History owes Themistocles an unimaginable debt of gratitude of convincing the Athenians not to use revenue from a newly-discovered (in the 490s BC) silver mine to, in effect, give a “tax cut” to everyone in Athens. Instead, he persuaded his fickle, democratic countrymen to invest in a public works project of common purpose: building a massive navy. Without that investment, Xerxes may well have conquered Greece and, likely, much rest of Europe——extinguishing the light of classical Greece before it had a chance to flourish. The history of the world without that guiding light is a vision of darkness I don’t wish to imagine.
That the author uses a novelistic effect is not at all meant as criticism. Hale’s writing is gripping and evocative. He makes you feel as though you’re actually sailing "the wine-dark sea," the foam of waves splashing your face as you sit on the prow of an Athenian warship, the "trireme."
As with many books that cover this period, LORDS OF THE SEA, while ostensibly focused on naval history, is in truth a good overall history of Athens during its golden age——from the victory against the Persians, through the Peloponnesian Wars, until Alexander of Macedon brought the end of democracy and instituted an age of kings. All the major developments of the period are given fresh treatment, and the individuals who dominated that era——Themistocles, Pericles, Cleon, Alcibiades, Demosthenes, and others——come alive.
When discussing the history of ancient Athens, the Peloponnesian War naturally looms large. Indeed, about two-thirds of the book is about that "Greek world war." This massive conflict exerts such a hold on my imagination that, every time I read about it, I find myself rooting for the Athenians, even though I already know the eventual, dismal outcome.
One final observation: History owes Themistocles an unimaginable debt of gratitude of convincing the Athenians not to use revenue from a newly-discovered (in the 490s BC) silver mine to, in effect, give a “tax cut” to everyone in Athens. Instead, he persuaded his fickle, democratic countrymen to invest in a public works project of common purpose: building a massive navy. Without that investment, Xerxes may well have conquered Greece and, likely, much rest of Europe——extinguishing the light of classical Greece before it had a chance to flourish. The history of the world without that guiding light is a vision of darkness I don’t wish to imagine.
November 7, 2011
This is a very interesting, albeit lengthy, book. It describes the rise of the Athenian navy in the Golden Age, and its role and impact on the concept of democracy. Themistocles opined that building a great navy would make Athens a great city state and this proved to be so. Although outnumbered badly, Athenian triremes crushed Xerxes Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis in 480BC and set the stage for two centuries of greatness. The Athenians battled not only Persians, but Spartans and ultimately Macedonians. The fleet was very democratic, and indeed, the trireme rowers had to be free men; this was their responsibility to the state and a great source of pride. Several great playwrights, like Sophocles and Euripides were rowers and their plays often reflect nautical themes. Philosophers too, like Socrates and Plato, used the ship of state as metaphors for the analysis of government. There is a case to be made that sea farers have broad horizons, and that contact with other cultures make them open to new ideas that have adaptive value. The book is historical, showing the role of key figures, like the well managed governance of Pericles, in that history. The author relates actions, particularly sea battles, not just as who was there and what happened, but adds in a novelists view. He paints a picture for the reader about what it must have looked like on this day, with 200 triremes moving off quietly for a surprise attack.
December 23, 2019
My second time through Hale's excellent assay of the role of triremes (large, light rowed battle ships of highly specialized design) in the rise and fall of Athens and Greece. He knows what questions to ask and answer, and evokes well the politics and people of the story. Again we are reminded forcefully of the nature of Golden Age society, which was a truly wacky mix of ambition, talent and demagoguery, and in which getting too big for your britches was very often fatal. The best of them, hardly when triumph had cooled, were ostracized--Themistocles, Sophocles, Pericles and many other of the best minds. For 30 years, on land and sea, the founders of democracy killed and betrayed each other, and in the end, less than 100 years after their unity and defeat of Persian invasion, Greece was gone with the wind. If you wonder what humans really are, and if we have learned anything, the suicide of Greece suggests an answer.
January 18, 2019
A detailed and yet lively account of the rise and fall of the Athenian navy and, not coincidentally, her role as a great power in the Mediterranean region. Professor Hale is probably the leading authority on rowed warships (he rowed crew for Yale while studying with Donald Kagan) and it shows: not only are the campaigns, the strategies and the battles skillfully portrayed, but the techniques of sailing, rowing and fighting an oared galley - the ancient Greeks used a triple-banked oared ship known as a "trireme" - as is the finance and outfitting of such a fleet. Most important, however, were how the Athenians crewed and commanded their navy, and about the great men were who were their leaders. All in all, a ripping great read of life, battle and death on the wine-dark sea, and an excellent introduction to naval warfare in the golden age of Greece.
July 8, 2015
Non-fiction lost its draw for me years ago, but I read this one because of a "you read mine, I'll read yours," kind of deal with a friend.
I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed it, to the point that I wanted to go out and be an Athenian badass, lol!
It's difficult to write about a battle so that the lay-reader can really follow and grasp it, but through his words and diagrams, John Hale explains the naval maneuvers in a way that made me see them perfectly clearly.
More than anything else, however, is that the author truly does achieve what to me seemed to be his primary reason for telling this rich history: To inspire the reader as to what a bit of daring, a bit of boldness, and a bit of courage can accomplish, along with what can happen when we become afraid to use them.
I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed it, to the point that I wanted to go out and be an Athenian badass, lol!
It's difficult to write about a battle so that the lay-reader can really follow and grasp it, but through his words and diagrams, John Hale explains the naval maneuvers in a way that made me see them perfectly clearly.
More than anything else, however, is that the author truly does achieve what to me seemed to be his primary reason for telling this rich history: To inspire the reader as to what a bit of daring, a bit of boldness, and a bit of courage can accomplish, along with what can happen when we become afraid to use them.
March 10, 2020
This was an amazing read. Very informative, but even more thrilling at once. The book reads like a novel, but offers good insight in the maritime being of ancient Athens. However, do not get tricked by the writing style and keep your head cool. This book is about naval affairs first and foremost and tends to give a lot of credit to the Athenian navy. As a reader, you should not forget that Athens is not only a maritime empire.
In short, I would like to recommend this book to anyone who likes a fast paced and exciting book about Athenian maritime history.
In short, I would like to recommend this book to anyone who likes a fast paced and exciting book about Athenian maritime history.
January 9, 2014
If only I didn't love Sparta so much I would give this book 5 stars. However, it is hard to fully enjoy a book about all of Sparta's nemesis, Athen's victories :) That said, I really enjoyed the way the John Hale wrote and I can hardly complain about any of literary details of the book.
Lords of Sea was a basically a journey through the rise and eventual fall of the Athenian navy, and John Hale also tied this rise of the navy to the rise of the democracy in the world, which may be a stretch connecting the two so strongly, but he does spend time discussing Athen's democracy because of that idea, which was fine. Therefore, a big thing I learned from this book is the incredible fickleness of a pure democracy. In the one sense of that fickleness, the government was constantly expelling citizens and then accepting with open arms 10 years later that same citizen. Since democracy rests on the mood of the mob, they would expel a general from the city after a defeat or failed plan, only to accept them back a few years down the road when he has had a military success for another city or brings forth a new plan. A person with any sort of power within a democracy can never feel safe, for the sentiments of a mob are liable to change and violently switch sides of the spectrum at any time. This evidences a strong problem a pure democracy.
Another aspect of the fickleness of their democracy was how often the government changed. The government seemed to be in a continuous cycle of being a democracy to becoming a oligarchy to going back to a democracy to being ruled by the rich tyrants to going back to a democracy. The democracy was never firmly stable. Because as the mood of the mob can change on rulings within the government, so it can easily change with what form of government it wants.
It was also incredible to read of how Athen's power and naval power was constantly going up and down. It seemed just as soon as they had won a few great victories and built a massive fleet, they would lose all the ships in a massive defeat. But within a few years, they would scrounge up the resources to rebuild that fleet and go out and reconquer their lost territory. And this cycle seemed to repeat multiple times in their 200 years of naval dominance. Therefore, with their combination of democracy and navy up and downs, I cannot say the Athenians were a consistent people, I will however commend their astonishing perseverance!
Lords of Sea was a basically a journey through the rise and eventual fall of the Athenian navy, and John Hale also tied this rise of the navy to the rise of the democracy in the world, which may be a stretch connecting the two so strongly, but he does spend time discussing Athen's democracy because of that idea, which was fine. Therefore, a big thing I learned from this book is the incredible fickleness of a pure democracy. In the one sense of that fickleness, the government was constantly expelling citizens and then accepting with open arms 10 years later that same citizen. Since democracy rests on the mood of the mob, they would expel a general from the city after a defeat or failed plan, only to accept them back a few years down the road when he has had a military success for another city or brings forth a new plan. A person with any sort of power within a democracy can never feel safe, for the sentiments of a mob are liable to change and violently switch sides of the spectrum at any time. This evidences a strong problem a pure democracy.
Another aspect of the fickleness of their democracy was how often the government changed. The government seemed to be in a continuous cycle of being a democracy to becoming a oligarchy to going back to a democracy to being ruled by the rich tyrants to going back to a democracy. The democracy was never firmly stable. Because as the mood of the mob can change on rulings within the government, so it can easily change with what form of government it wants.
It was also incredible to read of how Athen's power and naval power was constantly going up and down. It seemed just as soon as they had won a few great victories and built a massive fleet, they would lose all the ships in a massive defeat. But within a few years, they would scrounge up the resources to rebuild that fleet and go out and reconquer their lost territory. And this cycle seemed to repeat multiple times in their 200 years of naval dominance. Therefore, with their combination of democracy and navy up and downs, I cannot say the Athenians were a consistent people, I will however commend their astonishing perseverance!
June 4, 2013
I have read many histories of ancient Greece, of Athenian democracy and of "the golden age of Athens". Given our own cultural mythology, so many have been written that the field tends towards cliches. Hales' Londs of the Sea is a departure from the run of the mill, detailing as he does the history of Greece from the battle of Marathon through the Macedonian conquest by telling the story in terms of the Athenian thallasocracy cum democracy. His book is the most readable work I've yet read on the period.
Most histories leave me frustrated. Too many questions are left unanswered. I wonder if we simply don't have the evidence to answer the questions that arise for me or if authors assume readers already know the answers. Hale was not frustrating in this way. Not only did he anticipate such concerns, but he managed to go beyond them, opening vistas of speculation that I'd not thought of before. He does this primarily in terms of the Athenian navy. He not only describes the ships, the triremes, but tells how they were built all the way down to the peggings between planks and the structure of the shipyards. He not only describes the important sea battles, but he tells how the ships were deployed, how they maneuvered, what the weather was like that day etc. If there is any flaw to this method of explication it could only be that he gives the impression that we know more than we actually do about events in the ancient world, that perhaps he tendentiously reconstructs events with more apparent confidence than he deserves. Indeed, this is doubtless the case in some instances, but the result is a history that flows like a good novel. Everything makes sense. The characters are realistically represented, believable. So, too, his argument that classical Athens was first and foremost a people's navy may come across as all-to-convincing, as obvious, undebatable.
Still, Hale is well-suited for his task. Not only is he a classicist and archaeologist, he is also a rower himself, someone sensitive to the importance of current, of weather, of crew solidarity and leadership, but also to the sensivities of the thetic buttocks of the average Athenian sailor.
Most histories leave me frustrated. Too many questions are left unanswered. I wonder if we simply don't have the evidence to answer the questions that arise for me or if authors assume readers already know the answers. Hale was not frustrating in this way. Not only did he anticipate such concerns, but he managed to go beyond them, opening vistas of speculation that I'd not thought of before. He does this primarily in terms of the Athenian navy. He not only describes the ships, the triremes, but tells how they were built all the way down to the peggings between planks and the structure of the shipyards. He not only describes the important sea battles, but he tells how the ships were deployed, how they maneuvered, what the weather was like that day etc. If there is any flaw to this method of explication it could only be that he gives the impression that we know more than we actually do about events in the ancient world, that perhaps he tendentiously reconstructs events with more apparent confidence than he deserves. Indeed, this is doubtless the case in some instances, but the result is a history that flows like a good novel. Everything makes sense. The characters are realistically represented, believable. So, too, his argument that classical Athens was first and foremost a people's navy may come across as all-to-convincing, as obvious, undebatable.
Still, Hale is well-suited for his task. Not only is he a classicist and archaeologist, he is also a rower himself, someone sensitive to the importance of current, of weather, of crew solidarity and leadership, but also to the sensivities of the thetic buttocks of the average Athenian sailor.
April 15, 2013
I read LORDS OF THE SEA in a somewhat desultory fashion in paper about two years ago, and put it down, not to get to it again, not because I didn't like it, I just lost track of it and didn't get back to it. Recently I checked out a library audio copy from Overdrive, and I finished it last weekend. I am now going to go back and re-read the paper book to get the names right. LORDS OF THE SEA is an excellent, readable history of the rise of the Athenian navy and the Wars of the Delian League that followed. The author, John Hale, inculcates the story with moments of high drama as the city of Athens struggles to meet the challenge of Persian obliteration, then to achieve naval supremacy against the Persians and other opponents (often other Greeks) in the century that followed the Battles of Salamis and the Eurymedon. This was not a time of unending successes; a disastrous expedition to Egypt to support a revolt against the Persian Empire ended in failure, with 20,000 Athenians lost. Internal disputes among the Delian League members and conflict with the Spartan's own Peliponesian League in the first First Pelopenisian War further eroded Athens' claim to hegemony in the Aegean. Throughout their period of ascendancy, Athens understood their power (and culture, as Hale points out) derived from a relentless pursuit of a superior navy and overall "navalization" of their culture. Much like Sparta's militarization of their entire populace, so did Athens adapt an overall naval focus to every level of society. In an undertaking that required rich men to sit on the same rowing bench as poor men, society soon became democratized as well. Hale's book touches on all levels of the naval revolution of Athens, including the arts, democracy and society-- as well as being an exciting and engaging work of history. LORDS OF THE SEA reads like an adventure book, not a history, and I devoured it. Highly recommended.
August 3, 2022
This one reads more like a survey course than a seriously deep dive. I got the sense Hale could have (and maybe did) write a good deal more detail about Greek culture and technicalities of shipbuilding or naval strategy. However what got published is a fairly trimmed down kernel of the essentials with only intermittent dalliances into ancient Greek life. I think expansions on those would have been welcome, especially given Hale's clear prose and appropriate framing of context.
A great read in advance of a Greece trip or, as the title suggests, for anyone interested in the trial and tribulations of democracy's birth.
A great read in advance of a Greece trip or, as the title suggests, for anyone interested in the trial and tribulations of democracy's birth.
October 18, 2017
Hale's "Lords of the Sea" is a non-stop adventure into ancient maritime Greece. Hale has a gift for bringing the historical figures of the Athenian age to life with simple but vivid language. There was hardly a dull moment in the book, and Hale peppers it with unexpected observations - did the shipbuilding-induced deforestation of Attica and subsequent massive importation of timber from Macedonia lead to the rise of Macedon and Alexander the Great? What was the process used to cast the enormous bronze rams on Athenian triremes? This book is a great introduction to classical Greece for the general reader.
September 15, 2022
Excellent overview of 5th and 4th century Athenian life as shaped by the Navy. Starts with the Persian wars and finished with the final defeat of the Athenians by the successors of Alexander. Hale is a good storyteller. The book is a little more pro-Athenian than I like; romanticizing democracy, the Persians don't come out looking so well, etc. But, his approach as a naval historian is novel and it is an enlightening read on the whole. The illustrations are also nicely done. I would recommend all of the authors Great Courses series.
December 12, 2015
Lords of the Sea is a thrilling account of ancient Athens as seen through the lens of the city-state's Navy. Hale not only provides masterful accounts of major battles and naval policies, but also shows how the Navy influenced virtually all aspects of Athenian life--from theatrical plays to the democratization of government. This is an interesting and unique perspective on ancient Athens's glorious heyday.
September 13, 2016
Честно говоря, совершенно ничего не знаю о Джоне Хейле, как об античнике, но то что популяризатор науки он блестящий, это бесспорно. Эту книгу написал не просто человек, влюбленный в свое дело - ее написал настоящий поэт. Сквозная мысль - истоком афинской демократии - самой последовательной и радикальной демократии в человеческой истории стал афинский флот. Отдельное спасибо переводчику книги Николаю Анастасьеву - перевод такого качества в настоящее время - это редкость.
August 20, 2019
Wonderfully written book about my favorite period of Greek history. As the title
suggests, the emphasis is on the naval side of warfare and the rise and fall of Athens
as the dominant force in the Mediterranean. Not as much emphasis on battles as
some other books, but the development and logistics of Trireme fleets is explored
in depth, with some interesting commentary regarding politics, literature, etc. This
book gives you a whole new perspective on the period.
suggests, the emphasis is on the naval side of warfare and the rise and fall of Athens
as the dominant force in the Mediterranean. Not as much emphasis on battles as
some other books, but the development and logistics of Trireme fleets is explored
in depth, with some interesting commentary regarding politics, literature, etc. This
book gives you a whole new perspective on the period.
June 18, 2018
The strengths of states are a combination of a lot of factors. Structural factors like geography are tremendously important as they help form the politics, society, and military which are also significant contributors. In ancient Athens there were two things going for their polis: democracy and a navy. John R. Hale tells the story of the Athenian navy and how it changed the city-state starting with Themistocles' initiatives all the way through the acquiescence to Macedonian hegemony.
What works well in this study is the analysis of the Athenian navy itself. The reader learns how the triremes were built, funded, manned, and utilized in sea battles. This dispels a lot of questions I had regarding economics and military prominence during this period. For instance, how could a coastal, rocky region in Greece have the means to build all of these wooden boats over and over again? Hale discusses how Athens exhausted their wood supply through deforestation which led to procuring this resource from foreign markets. One of which was Macedon. Through this trade relationship, Athens depleted their autarky while Macedon became enriched. This would eventually open a vulnerability that Philip would exploit and start the swan song of the most powerful naval polis of the era.
Combat is also told in a compelling manner which builds excitement when reading about the battles. Different tactics and perspectives are discussed for the many battles which gives the reader new ways to consider what could be identical events. If the battles were told in a standard tactical standpoint, it would get old quick. Hale lets us row, fight, steer, and command which will be great reading for the military historian or nautical enthusiast.
The second theme is where Hale leaves the reader short. In my opinion he does not make a valid case for the navy being the biggest factor for Athenian democracy. The significance of the thetes is very relevant as well as the role of the navy being the lifeline for the city-state. However, one needs to consider how war in general affects democracy. How wealth and trade affect democracy. How individuals can shape democracy. These topics are incorporated in the narrative, but I don't see how the navy directly creates or affects this form of kratos. Could a polis with a substantial land army have a democracy and see it ebb and flow based on the policies and success of their military? I think so. Hale's study definitely leaves the impression that a navy can have a huge impact on a state's or empire's greatness, but I'm not sold specifically on the effects to the kratos. I think that democracy was affected by many other things. The Athenian navy is simply a part of a larger analysis.
Great reading though. This is fine military and political history that does not get bogged down in esoteric details or theories. A good source for those interested in naval history or ancient militaries.
What works well in this study is the analysis of the Athenian navy itself. The reader learns how the triremes were built, funded, manned, and utilized in sea battles. This dispels a lot of questions I had regarding economics and military prominence during this period. For instance, how could a coastal, rocky region in Greece have the means to build all of these wooden boats over and over again? Hale discusses how Athens exhausted their wood supply through deforestation which led to procuring this resource from foreign markets. One of which was Macedon. Through this trade relationship, Athens depleted their autarky while Macedon became enriched. This would eventually open a vulnerability that Philip would exploit and start the swan song of the most powerful naval polis of the era.
Combat is also told in a compelling manner which builds excitement when reading about the battles. Different tactics and perspectives are discussed for the many battles which gives the reader new ways to consider what could be identical events. If the battles were told in a standard tactical standpoint, it would get old quick. Hale lets us row, fight, steer, and command which will be great reading for the military historian or nautical enthusiast.
The second theme is where Hale leaves the reader short. In my opinion he does not make a valid case for the navy being the biggest factor for Athenian democracy. The significance of the thetes is very relevant as well as the role of the navy being the lifeline for the city-state. However, one needs to consider how war in general affects democracy. How wealth and trade affect democracy. How individuals can shape democracy. These topics are incorporated in the narrative, but I don't see how the navy directly creates or affects this form of kratos. Could a polis with a substantial land army have a democracy and see it ebb and flow based on the policies and success of their military? I think so. Hale's study definitely leaves the impression that a navy can have a huge impact on a state's or empire's greatness, but I'm not sold specifically on the effects to the kratos. I think that democracy was affected by many other things. The Athenian navy is simply a part of a larger analysis.
Great reading though. This is fine military and political history that does not get bogged down in esoteric details or theories. A good source for those interested in naval history or ancient militaries.
August 5, 2019
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Под конец прочтения книги можно произнести такие слова: флот и сила стратегического планирования. Да, подъём Афин, их золотой век, век расцвета, целиком и полностью пересекается с подъёмом их морской империи с флотом во главе (плюс, умение грамотно, с разумом этим воспользоваться). И заканчивается эта 150 летняя эпоха даже не разгромом, т.к. Афины переживали разгром и ранее и как Феникс восставали из пепла, а потерей более важной и более неуловимой сущности. А может, это просто мир изменился, а они – нет. В любом случаи книга предлагает нам великолепный рассказ о том, как строилась, развивалась и жила эта морская империя.
Книга, по моему мнению – уникальна. Автор настолько интересно пишет о настолько далёком и для некоторых, несколько скучном школьном материале, что лично для меня, это было просто поразительно, что можно написать такую увлекательную и захватывающую книгу. Автор в ярких красках описывает каждое сражение (зачастую, это всё – морские сражения), создавая ощущение полной вовлеченности читателя, как будто ты сам как бы паришь над сценой морского сражения, над всеми кораблями. Особо удачно получилось передать самые драматические события, а точнее, когда просто каким-то чудом Афины вырывали победу в сражении. Это получилось у автора просто великолепно. Конечно, возникает вопрос, откуда у него настолько детальная информация? Но с другой стороны, все эти увлекательные и фантастические сражения являлись переходными моментами в той или иной войне, так что в принципе, современники могли это описать. В любом случаи, книга получилась чуть ли не художественной, в том смысле, в каком это касается одной из самых замечательных книг по истории, а именно «Боевой клич свободы. Гражданская война 1861-1865», где автор с такой же поразительной точностью описывает важнейшие боевые действия и, как и в этой, важнейшее или даже ключевое событие одной конкретной битвы. Так же и тут, мы как бы смотрим киноленту, на которой развёртывается война сначала на море, а потом сразу в самих Афинах, но уже с использованием риторики. Мы видим весь блеск афинской демократии и как благодаря ей Афины поднялись практически на недосягаемую высоту, что даже Царь царей не решался дать открытое морское сражение. И до её негативных моментов, в особенности связанных с печальной историей группового суда над бывшими стратегами-победителями, высветивших все недостатки афинской демократии и невольно задавшись вопросом, а не она ли, в конце концов, привела к окончательному концу морской империи.
Что касается периода повествования, то история начинается, разумеется, со знаменитого противостояния с Ксерксом (это там появится ныне популярный Леонид с 300 спартанцами, хотя, конечно, их там не 300 было). Далее, и это большая часть книги, мы увидим противостояние и ключевые битвы во время Пелопоннесской войны и главным врагом, а до этого союзником в войне с Ксерксом - Спартой. И закончится книга и золотой век Афин, сначала союзом с Александром Македонским, а после его смерти, разгромом и на море и на суше его последователем. Удивительно, но если раньше Афины терпели поражения из-за полного военного разгрома, то в этом заключительном акте, когда у Афин будет максимальное количество военных кораблей, потребуется гибель лишь трёх, чтобы Афины запросили полной капитуляции. Что это? Поражение без битвы или поражения до битвы, проигрыш самим себе. «Мы встретили врага, и оказалось, что это — мы сами!»? Так или иначе, это великолепная наполовину лекция и наполовину документальный фильм, который расскажет читателю о сути Афин.
At the end of the book you can say the following words: fleet and strength of strategic planning. Yes, the rise of Athens, their golden age, their heyday, is completely overlapping with the rise of their sea empire with the fleet at its head (plus the ability to use it with reason). And this 150-year epoch ends not even with the defeat, because Athens experienced the defeat before and how the Phoenix rose from the ashes, but with the loss of a more important and more elusive essence. Or maybe it's just that the world has changed, but they haven't. In any case, the book offers us a wonderful story about how this sea empire was built, developed and lived.
The book, in my opinion, is unique. The author writes so interestingly about such a far (and for some boring) school material that for me personally it was just amazing that one can write such an exciting and fascinating book. The author describes each battle in bright colors (often it's all - sea battles), creating a feeling of full involvement of the reader, as if you yourself were hovering over the scene of sea battle, over all the ships. It was especially successful to convey the most dramatic events, when by some miracle Athens snatched the victory in the battle. The author did it just perfectly. Of course, the question arises, where did he get such detailed information? But on the other hand, all these exciting and fantastic battles were transitional moments in this or that war, so that in principle, contemporaries could describe it. In any case, the book turned out to be almost artistic, in the sense that it relates to one of the most remarkable books on history, namely "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson, where the author describes with the same striking accuracy the most important military actions and, as in this one, the most important or even the key event of one particular battle. Here, too, as if we were watching a movie on which the war unfolds, first on the sea, and then immediately in Athens itself, but with the use of rhetoric. We see all the glitter of Athens' democracy and how, thanks to it, Athens has risen to almost unattainable heights, that even the King of Kings did not dare to give an open sea battle. And to her negative moments, especially those related to the sad history of group trial of former strategists victorious, highlighting all the shortcomings of Athens democracy and unwittingly wondering if it eventually caused the final end of the sea empire.
As for the narrative period, the story begins, of course, with the famous confrontation with Xerxes (from there will appear nowadays popular Leonid with 300 Spartans, although, of course, they were not 300). Next, and this is most of the book, we will see the confrontation and key battles during the Peloponnese War with the main enemy (and before that ally in the war with Xerxes) - Sparta. And the book and the golden age of Athens will end, first with the alliance with Alexander the Great, and after his death, the defeat at sea and on land by his (Alexander the Great) follower. Surprisingly, but if before Athens were defeated because of the complete military defeat, in this final act, when Athens will have the maximum number of warships, it will take the loss of only three (warships), so that Athens asked for a complete surrender. What is this? Defeat without a battle or defeat before the battle, losing to yourself. "We met the enemy, and it turned out to be us!" One way or another, it's a great half lecture and half a documentary that will tell the reader about the essence of Athens.
Под конец прочтения книги можно произнести такие слова: флот и сила стратегического планирования. Да, подъём Афин, их золотой век, век расцвета, целиком и полностью пересекается с подъёмом их морской империи с флотом во главе (плюс, умение грамотно, с разумом этим воспользоваться). И заканчивается эта 150 летняя эпоха даже не разгромом, т.к. Афины переживали разгром и ранее и как Феникс восставали из пепла, а потерей более важной и более неуловимой сущности. А может, это просто мир изменился, а они – нет. В любом случаи книга предлагает нам великолепный рассказ о том, как строилась, развивалась и жила эта морская империя.
Книга, по моему мнению – уникальна. Автор настолько интересно пишет о настолько далёком и для некоторых, несколько скучном школьном материале, что лично для меня, это было просто поразительно, что можно написать такую увлекательную и захватывающую книгу. Автор в ярких красках описывает каждое сражение (зачастую, это всё – морские сражения), создавая ощущение полной вовлеченности читателя, как будто ты сам как бы паришь над сценой морского сражения, над всеми кораблями. Особо удачно получилось передать самые драматические события, а точнее, когда просто каким-то чудом Афины вырывали победу в сражении. Это получилось у автора просто великолепно. Конечно, возникает вопрос, откуда у него настолько детальная информация? Но с другой стороны, все эти увлекательные и фантастические сражения являлись переходными моментами в той или иной войне, так что в принципе, современники могли это описать. В любом случаи, книга получилась чуть ли не художественной, в том смысле, в каком это касается одной из самых замечательных книг по истории, а именно «Боевой клич свободы. Гражданская война 1861-1865», где автор с такой же поразительной точностью описывает важнейшие боевые действия и, как и в этой, важнейшее или даже ключевое событие одной конкретной битвы. Так же и тут, мы как бы смотрим киноленту, на которой развёртывается война сначала на море, а потом сразу в самих Афинах, но уже с использованием риторики. Мы видим весь блеск афинской демократии и как благодаря ей Афины поднялись практически на недосягаемую высоту, что даже Царь царей не решался дать открытое морское сражение. И до её негативных моментов, в особенности связанных с печальной историей группового суда над бывшими стратегами-победителями, высветивших все недостатки афинской демократии и невольно задавшись вопросом, а не она ли, в конце концов, привела к окончательному концу морской империи.
Что касается периода повествования, то история начинается, разумеется, со знаменитого противостояния с Ксерксом (это там появится ныне популярный Леонид с 300 спартанцами, хотя, конечно, их там не 300 было). Далее, и это большая часть книги, мы увидим противостояние и ключевые битвы во время Пелопоннесской войны и главным врагом, а до этого союзником в войне с Ксерксом - Спартой. И закончится книга и золотой век Афин, сначала союзом с Александром Македонским, а после его смерти, разгромом и на море и на суше его последователем. Удивительно, но если раньше Афины терпели поражения из-за полного военного разгрома, то в этом заключительном акте, когда у Афин будет максимальное количество военных кораблей, потребуется гибель лишь трёх, чтобы Афины запросили полной капитуляции. Что это? Поражение без битвы или поражения до битвы, проигрыш самим себе. «Мы встретили врага, и оказалось, что это — мы сами!»? Так или иначе, это великолепная наполовину лекция и наполовину документальный фильм, который расскажет читателю о сути Афин.
At the end of the book you can say the following words: fleet and strength of strategic planning. Yes, the rise of Athens, their golden age, their heyday, is completely overlapping with the rise of their sea empire with the fleet at its head (plus the ability to use it with reason). And this 150-year epoch ends not even with the defeat, because Athens experienced the defeat before and how the Phoenix rose from the ashes, but with the loss of a more important and more elusive essence. Or maybe it's just that the world has changed, but they haven't. In any case, the book offers us a wonderful story about how this sea empire was built, developed and lived.
The book, in my opinion, is unique. The author writes so interestingly about such a far (and for some boring) school material that for me personally it was just amazing that one can write such an exciting and fascinating book. The author describes each battle in bright colors (often it's all - sea battles), creating a feeling of full involvement of the reader, as if you yourself were hovering over the scene of sea battle, over all the ships. It was especially successful to convey the most dramatic events, when by some miracle Athens snatched the victory in the battle. The author did it just perfectly. Of course, the question arises, where did he get such detailed information? But on the other hand, all these exciting and fantastic battles were transitional moments in this or that war, so that in principle, contemporaries could describe it. In any case, the book turned out to be almost artistic, in the sense that it relates to one of the most remarkable books on history, namely "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson, where the author describes with the same striking accuracy the most important military actions and, as in this one, the most important or even the key event of one particular battle. Here, too, as if we were watching a movie on which the war unfolds, first on the sea, and then immediately in Athens itself, but with the use of rhetoric. We see all the glitter of Athens' democracy and how, thanks to it, Athens has risen to almost unattainable heights, that even the King of Kings did not dare to give an open sea battle. And to her negative moments, especially those related to the sad history of group trial of former strategists victorious, highlighting all the shortcomings of Athens democracy and unwittingly wondering if it eventually caused the final end of the sea empire.
As for the narrative period, the story begins, of course, with the famous confrontation with Xerxes (from there will appear nowadays popular Leonid with 300 Spartans, although, of course, they were not 300). Next, and this is most of the book, we will see the confrontation and key battles during the Peloponnese War with the main enemy (and before that ally in the war with Xerxes) - Sparta. And the book and the golden age of Athens will end, first with the alliance with Alexander the Great, and after his death, the defeat at sea and on land by his (Alexander the Great) follower. Surprisingly, but if before Athens were defeated because of the complete military defeat, in this final act, when Athens will have the maximum number of warships, it will take the loss of only three (warships), so that Athens asked for a complete surrender. What is this? Defeat without a battle or defeat before the battle, losing to yourself. "We met the enemy, and it turned out to be us!" One way or another, it's a great half lecture and half a documentary that will tell the reader about the essence of Athens.
April 7, 2020
This was a book- I regret to say- that stayed on my ‘to read’ pile for three years after I picked it up. Every time it came to the top, another took precedence and it wound up at the very bottom again. This isn’t the first time I’ve done something similar either where a really brilliant book such as this bides its time (for far too long) watching inferior books go before it- never complaining but in retrospect smugly waiting its term- oh! I could kick myself for delaying cracking open this book and by the end of this review I very well might!
So, for studies of Periclean Athens it’s been Donald Kagan for the past half century. Aside from being authoritative his four volume History of the Peloponnesian War also has the benefit of being incredibly readable while his one volume distillation combines those previous qualities with brevity. His biography/history of Pericles is equally superb and while I’ve read and enjoyed everything Kagan has produced and while I acknowledge that he is in no danger of being superseded for at least the next 50 years I personally like John Hale’s Lords of the Sea better. He’s a great writer for one, and his analysis is very astute. His thesis that Athens’ cultural, political, and military high point was inextricably bound to her naval tradition is so rigorously and thoroughly presented that it is frankly unassailable by any serious student of the Greeks.
It took me two days to read this book- but it would have only taken me one if I hadn’t immediately Googled offhandedly comments Hale makes just to learn a bit more about the subject. I passed a Saturday in absolute glee turning pages, and studying his sources that I skipped lunch and I would be greatly surprised to find that that is not the inevitable tale for anyone who similarly opens this book.
So, for studies of Periclean Athens it’s been Donald Kagan for the past half century. Aside from being authoritative his four volume History of the Peloponnesian War also has the benefit of being incredibly readable while his one volume distillation combines those previous qualities with brevity. His biography/history of Pericles is equally superb and while I’ve read and enjoyed everything Kagan has produced and while I acknowledge that he is in no danger of being superseded for at least the next 50 years I personally like John Hale’s Lords of the Sea better. He’s a great writer for one, and his analysis is very astute. His thesis that Athens’ cultural, political, and military high point was inextricably bound to her naval tradition is so rigorously and thoroughly presented that it is frankly unassailable by any serious student of the Greeks.
It took me two days to read this book- but it would have only taken me one if I hadn’t immediately Googled offhandedly comments Hale makes just to learn a bit more about the subject. I passed a Saturday in absolute glee turning pages, and studying his sources that I skipped lunch and I would be greatly surprised to find that that is not the inevitable tale for anyone who similarly opens this book.
September 30, 2018
This history of the Athenian trireme and the Athenian Navy was written by a historian and, importantly, a former college crew team member. I'm guessing many crew members with any sense of history can imagine themselves akin to those ancient oarsmen.
John Hale's thesis is that we have a skewed sense of ancient Athens if we think only of the Parthenon, philosophy, science, and dramatic plays. He paints a picture of a culture based on its Navy. He contends that only the Phoenicians and the Polynesians were wedded as much (or more) to the sea than Athens.
The reason for our incorrect modern perspective of Athens is that written records and stone buildings survive, but there's nothing left of the Athenian navy--no shipyards and not a single trireme.
Mr. Hale takes us through the history of the Athenian navy including its humble beginnings, its Golden Age, and its various resurrections, to its final end.
I certainly learned a lot about life aboard a trireme. As the author of a short story set aboard a trireme ("Against All Gods"), I wish I'd read this book before I wrote the story!
All that said, I'm not convinced of the author's contention that a Navy-centric city-state leads to democratic government. He didn't connect these two things in a cause-effect relationship firmly enough for me.
Still, I recommend this book. It's well written and easy to read.
John Hale's thesis is that we have a skewed sense of ancient Athens if we think only of the Parthenon, philosophy, science, and dramatic plays. He paints a picture of a culture based on its Navy. He contends that only the Phoenicians and the Polynesians were wedded as much (or more) to the sea than Athens.
The reason for our incorrect modern perspective of Athens is that written records and stone buildings survive, but there's nothing left of the Athenian navy--no shipyards and not a single trireme.
Mr. Hale takes us through the history of the Athenian navy including its humble beginnings, its Golden Age, and its various resurrections, to its final end.
I certainly learned a lot about life aboard a trireme. As the author of a short story set aboard a trireme ("Against All Gods"), I wish I'd read this book before I wrote the story!
All that said, I'm not convinced of the author's contention that a Navy-centric city-state leads to democratic government. He didn't connect these two things in a cause-effect relationship firmly enough for me.
Still, I recommend this book. It's well written and easy to read.
August 8, 2021
A concise yet detailed history of Athens and her Navy. I learned a new word that describes Athens too--thalassocracy, a state with primarily maritime realms, an empire at sea, or a seaborne empire. The book covers an immense about of material over about 200 years from 525 BC (the birth of Themistocles) to 322 BC (the final defeat of Athens the Macedonians, post-Alexander). There is a ton of information covering the birth of the Athenian Navy, trireme ship building techniques, the critical campaigns and events and with excellent maps to enhance the understanding. The Persian Wars, The Peloponnesian Wars, and the rise of Macedonia are all covered in sufficient detail to inform without becoming overwhelming and the personalities of the great and not so great are elucidated as well. There are informative footnotes, a glossary, chronology and further readings. This really should be 5-stars, but the endless praise of Athens and boasting about their 'democracy' became a little much at times. Athens reminds a lot of America, running around the world beating on smaller countries (how many coups has the U.S. fomented?--per Wikipedia: "According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000") while bragging the entire time about our great Democracy which has more or less ceased to exist anyway.
December 19, 2018
This is a concentrated and well written effort to look at the heyday of Ancient Athens - from the reforms of Themistocles to the Macedonian garrisoning of the Piraeus - with an emphasis on the sea. Hale does an exemplary job of integrating Athenian high and low culture into the narrative.
An example is a quotation from Euripides “the sea can wash away all human ills” which he uses to explain the (sadly brief) redemption of Alcibiades. Hale shows how the great dramatists and comedians celebrated, and swayed to, the triumphs (and calamities) of the City.
He is somewhat harsher on Plato and Aristotle, neither of whom appreciated democracy or its ties to the fleet. Although he explains their reasoning he sees them as elitist and standing against what truly made Athens great.
This is an intellectually exciting and informative book. It is highly recommended.
An example is a quotation from Euripides “the sea can wash away all human ills” which he uses to explain the (sadly brief) redemption of Alcibiades. Hale shows how the great dramatists and comedians celebrated, and swayed to, the triumphs (and calamities) of the City.
He is somewhat harsher on Plato and Aristotle, neither of whom appreciated democracy or its ties to the fleet. Although he explains their reasoning he sees them as elitist and standing against what truly made Athens great.
This is an intellectually exciting and informative book. It is highly recommended.
February 6, 2023
This is a succinct and connected history of a century and a half of the most impactful time in human history. None of what came afterwards would look remotely the same as it does today as affected by these events. Government, war, economics (a term not invented for until more than 2 millennium later) and even the science. Of course the navy dominates the story as it should, but there is much more here. Very readable and not padded prose, no doubt much more detail could have been added but this pops along nicely without feeling shorted at all. One last thing, the maps. Never have I seen a history book with better maps, normally they are too few, often filled with extraneous information that adds little and most importantly do not show events and places noted in the text. These are excellent on all counts. If an event is discussed it is shown on the maps.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 168 reviews