Explains significant events preceding the battle of Marathon and elaborates on the immediate consequences of the Athenian victory. Describes how the wars in Ionia eventually reached Greece, Athens's unique swerve toward democracy, and how the still very young Athenian democracy proved that it could defend itself from the expeditionary force of the powerful Persian empire. Speculates on the consequences if the Athenians had lost to Greece and consequently, to Western civilization. Discusses the historical significance of the battle to those who fought and to their immediate descendants, to Athens in later times, and to Greece. Points out that the importance of the ancient Greek culture to Western civilization was not, itself, a necessary thing, but arose from the turning of Western thought to the ancient Greeks during the Renaissance and thereafter. Intelligent and clear, not excessively pedantic, and rather vivid in parts. ( )

Pocas batallas hay tan legendarias como la de Maratón. Este episodio decisivo de la primera de las Guerras Médicas enfrentó en el siglo V a. de C. a los ejércitos de los griegos y los persas, y dio lugar a nombres míticos, como el del general Milcíades, cuya estrategia permitió vencer a un ejército superior en número, o el del soldado Filípides, el mensajero que murió para anunciar la victoria a la ciudad de Atenas.

The author tells the story in six large chapters. Much of these follow the narrative of Herodotos.

Chapter 5 is the actual battle narrative. This was outstanding — one of the best retellings of a battle I’ve read. It was marred for me only by the author’s use of future perfect (“will have done”), rather than the same in past tense (“would have done”), when he was retelling things historians cannot know about that day. Maybe that’s standard for ancient history in American English, I don’t know, but for me it stood out. This quibble, though, didn’t take away from the fantastic battle narrative.

The central claim, that the Battle of Marathon was central to safeguarding Western civilisation, is not one I can accept. It’s a ludicrous thesis given the 2,500 years between then and now, and everything that has gone on between those two points. Yes, if the Athenians had lost at Marathon, the Persians would probably have conquered all of Greece, as Billows shows. And that, undoubtedly, would have meant that we’d live in a different present. But surely a similar argument could be made about a lot of different points in the history of Western Civilisation. What if Hannibal had defeated Rome? What if the Franks had lost the Battle of Tours? What if the Ottomans had captured Vienna? And so on. This book does present this central thesis in the least-silly manner it could be presented, to its credit.

Billows’ central claim, however, does not derail the book’s narrative. In fact, the book is mostly about the context, political development, and military tactics of the two sides of the battle. (That is to say, the history itself). Most of the book is lead-up, and that’s where the book shines. It seems Billows is a firm believer in understanding the military event in the context of its time, and all that had gone before, an approach I really appreciated.

This book is a great introduction to the epoch. Working outwards from the battle of Marathon, Billows deftly describes ancient Greek and to some extent Persian life, technology, culture, politics, and society. Highly recommended to any who have an interest in the period, but don’t know what to read. ( )

The author argues, probably correctly, that the battle of Marathon, where the Athenian army defeated a much larger force of invading Persians in 490 B.C.E., was one of the most important battles in Western history and that without it, the western world would be a very different place.

Now, I've certainly heard of Marathon before and I understood that it was an important battle. But I was initially worried that Billows was going to have trouble with a book-length treatment of it. After all, though we know the broad outlines of the battle, we know very little of the details. I therefore suspected that the initial chapters were going to give important background, and I suspected that I'd already know quite a bit of that.

I'm glad to say that was not the case. The initial chapters are indeed given over to background: Billows covers the development of the Greek city-states and their methods of war; the development of the Persian empire; the development of 5th century Athenian democracy; and the reasons for hostilities between the Greeks, especially the Athenians, and the Persians. But Billows gave a nicely detailed and nicely written account of all of these in which I learned quite a bit. Indeed this turned out to be one of the better summaries of pre-5th century Greek and Middle-Eastern history that I've read.

The discussion of the battle itself is a little short on detail, but that's what we've been left with from the historical record so we can't fault the author for that. The final chapter on the legacy of Marathon and how the world would be different without it I probably could have done without: lots of speculation. However I certainly agree with the main conclusion that the world would have been a very different place now had the Athenians lost the battle on that August morning. ( )

http://www.book-blog.com/2010/12/billows-richard-a-marathon.html ( )