It was becoming obvious by the end of the first quarter tonight that the Giants were in Deep DooDoo (to paraphrase the Elder Bush), so I decided to finish reading Steven Pressfield's Gates Of Fire.

The book is a historical novel based on the battle of Thermopylae in the 5th century BC. Most people have at least heard of it: King Leonidas of Sparta, with 100 hand-picked men and 200 Thesbian allies held the pass through the "Hot Gates" against the entire Persian army (which numbered at least in the hundreds of thousands; Herodotus insists that it was almost two million in size).

Those of you who like historical and military fiction need to look this one up (ISBN # 0-553-58053-1). Pressfield has done his research; it's a history lesson combined in a very well-written novel. I didn't think I'd like it, but I ended up nearly unable to put it down until I'd finished it.

I used to consider the Spartans a faceless, militaristic bunch of fanatics; Pressfield covers their human side. For example, I never knew that the Spartans controlled the fear of battle with (often ribald) humor; that they were actually a kind, honorable and generous people.

One reason why there were only 300 defenders left at the Gate on the last day is because King Leonidas of Sparta sent the other allies home. On the last day, King Xerxes offered the Spartans their lives if they'd surrender their weapons; Leonidas uttered the famous phrase, "Come and get them."

Maybe it's a man thing, but by gum, y've GOTTA like someone with that much nerve. :)

Look the book up. It's a great read. I don't know if the bookstores carry it for sale, but it'll probably be in your library.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Answers

I second your recommendation. I have read the book and it is historically accurate, rich in detail and well-written. I would take small issue with this:

"[The Spartans] were actually a kind, honorable and generous people."

The Spartans were an elite military caste whose existance relied on the labor of serfs called helots, who far outnumbered the Spartans in their own land. Helots were quite ruthlessly and systematically supressed and degraded. The status of a helot fell somewhere between an ante bellum slave on on a plantation (in terms of rights) and a sharecropper (in terms of living conditions).

The book touches upon the krypteiea in Sparta, an organization that was a kind of combination of the KKK and the KGB. The purpose of the krypteiea was simple - to keep the helots terrorized and prevent them from organizing against the Spartans. Young men in their early 20s were assigned duty in the krypteiea, who ran a network of informers among the helots and who would come in the middle of the night to work "summary justice" against helots who were suspected of being "subversive elements."

From the Spartan point of view this was simply correct behavior, keeping an inferior caste in their place. It was also necessary, because the helots had risen in revolt several times in their history and nearly succeeded! If they ever did succeed, that would be the end of the Spartan way of life. So, any action against helots was justified.

I'd agree that, within their own caste, the Spartans were kind, honorable and generous. In much the same way, I would expect a Georgia plantation owner was gracious, civilized, generous and honorable among genteel white society. But at the same time his field slaves were ruthlessly whipped for showing the least taint of personal initiative and dignity.

The book mentions some of this, but does not give it a very prominent or complete treatment. The facts are touched upon - but they are not developed. Clearly, the author wanted to tell a somewhat different story and a full description of the helot problem would have detracted from that story.

One imagines that, had the Nazis consolidated their victories and we learned their story from a sympathetic point of view, the subjugated and toiling peoples of Eastern Europe would be of little interest and the nobility of the German occupying force would be prominent - and not untruthful in its own way.

However, it is a good read, for sure. I agree. It just helps to have the full context.

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Think,

Re: the Helots -- I stand corrected and clarified. What you said is probably closer to what I intended to say. :)

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001