Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link World History Group RSS feed World History Group Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Book Review: The First Clash

Originally published by MHQ magazine. Published Online: May 03, 2011 
Print Friendly
2 comments FONT +  FONT -

The First Clash The Miraculous Greek Victory at Marathon and Its Impact on Western Civilization
By Jim Lacey. 272 pp. Bantam Dell, 2011.
Reviewed by Debra Hamel

Twenty-five hundred years ago, in 490 BC, a Persian army landed at Marathon, roughly 25 miles northeast of Athens. King Darius had sent his armada west to punish the Athenians, who had helped the Greek cities dotting the western shore of Asia Minor revolt against Persia in 499, culminating in the burning of Darius's capital at Sardis. The Athenians played only a minor role, but Darius had a long memory. After he suppressed the rebellion, the king took his juggernaut west: First Athens would fall, he imagined, then the whole of Greece would be assimilated into his vast empire.

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to MHQ magazine

Persia at the time extended from Egypt to India. Greece, by comparison, was tiny, with Athens a speck on the map. That the Athenians managed nonetheless to defeat the Persians at Marathon—and did so resoundingly: 192 men lost against 6,400 Persian dead—has seemed to many almost miraculous. Hence Jim Lacey's choice for the subtitle of his new account of the battle.

A military analyst and former officer with the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne Divisions, Lacey has considerable practical experience to draw from, which means he can appreciate better than most what events must have been like on the ground. Lacey also defends historian Victor Davis Hanson's view of a "Western way of war"—the principles of which made their debut at Marathon—that is superior to those of other cultures. Against the contention that the historical record is too fractured for a "way of war" to endure over time, Lacey argues that the continuity of civilization across the millennia suggests there has also been continuity in warfare. In particular, a military ethos can have been transmitted orally in the form of soldiers' stories—distorted in the telling, perhaps, but replete with persistent themes.

One of Lacey's main arguments is that "the deck was not as stacked against [the Athenians] as is typically assumed." The Athenians weren't just a bunch of armor-clad farmers, he says; they were armor-clad farmers tempered by decades of warfare so that Athens was "just as much a nation in arms as Sparta." That comparison is hard to swallow: The Spartans, after all, did nothing but prepare for war, their land worked by the helots; the Athenians had day jobs. Still, we can accept Lacey's point that the Athenians' accomplishment at Marathon suggests a high degree of training and discipline. (Lacey's claim that "what is truly remarkable is not that the Greeks won, but rather that any Persians left the Plain of Marathon alive" is surely hyperbole.)

Lacey also says the war archon Callimachus guided the Athenians at Marathon and deserves credit for victory. (Lack of evidence leaves the exact command structure open to debate.) Callimachus was the battle's hero, he argues, but his death in the battle allowed others—chiefly Miltiades—to claim the laurels.

Lacey's discussions of events not directly related to Marathon (the rebellions Darius quashed in the 520s, for example, and Pisistratus's stints as tyrant in Athens) are sometimes too detailed. But on the whole the book makes for a solidly researched and engaging introduction to Marathon and its antecedents.

Debra Hamel is the author of Trying Neaira: The True Story of a Courtesan's Scandalous Life in Ancient Greece. She is working on a book on Herodotus's history of the Persian Wars.


Click For More From MHQ!
Click For More From MHQ!


2 Responses to “Book Review: The First Clash”

  1. 1
    KiplingKat says:

    It is well researched, but I find Lacey too easily dismissive of accounts that do not support his theory of western military supremacy. Within 50 pages he has repeatedly accused almost all of the accounts closest to the events of lying…because he thinks they lied. There is no other account that disproves them, he just thinks they lied because they are not agreeing with what he thinks \really happened.\ That is not good history and presents a extreme bias that makes the entire work and it's theory suspect. It reads rather like a college argumentative paper rather an objective piece of historical research and it's quite fustrating.

  2. 2
    KiplingKat says:

    Apologies for the typos. I should have proofread better.

Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Related Articles

History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet? is brought to you by World History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
World History Group

World History Group Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer!
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2015 World History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy