Richard A. Billows (1) (1956–)

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.… (altro)

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.… (altro)

In this book, the classical scholar Richard Billows offers something different from the histories of the Alexander-centric historians who have preceded him. Rather than concentrating on Alexander, Billows expands his focus to encompass the pre-Alexander history of his homeland of Macedonia and the fate of his empire that followed. Though these subjects have been addressed by others, by bringing them together into a single book, Billows assesses Alexander's achievements from a different perspective — and the result is quite different from what might expect from previous books on the Macedonian conqueror.

The greatest consequence of Billows's approach is the highlighting of the achievements of Alexander's father, Philip. A great conqueror in his own right, while his reign has been overshadowed by his son, Billows makes clear how much of Alexander's success were due to his father's accomplishments. It was with Philip's army and Philip's commanders that Alexander waged his campaigns, which often used tactics that predated Alexander to win in battle. Yet Billows also notes that Philip himself was hardly an innovator, as he drew upon the experiences of decades of Greek wars in building his army into the Asian-conquering force of legend. This army was also the product of a region ripe for success, for as Billows details, its climate and geography gave it several natural advantages over the more tenuously-existing Green city states to the south.

From this perspective, Alexander's achievements were less as a creator than as an exploiter. This Billows underscores by emphasizing the unsustainable nature of his empire. As their abandonment so soon after Alexander's death makes clear, the Indian and Afghan territories comprising the easternmost edge of his conquests were simply too far off to be controlled from his resource base in Macedonia. While his plans for campaigns in North Africa and southern Europe may have been more realistic, they demonstrate that the essence of Alexander's achievements was conquest rather than construction. In this respect, his successors — the diadochi — deserve more credit for developing his legacy than Alexander himself merits, yet they too are often given only passing mention in most Alexander-centric considerations of the period.

All of this Billows lays out in an accessibly fluid text that makes for easy reading. He pulls no punches in his assessment of the "great" conqueror, and in doing so offers a valuable corrective to the overlarge reputation Alexander enjoys today. This is a book that anybody interested in a measured assessment of the legendary figure, one that details just how much of it rested on the shoulders of his predecessors and depended on the achievements of his successors.… (altro)