Category Archives: Ancient Greece

The Wandering King: Book 3 Begun

phalanx

 

Those that have been enjoying The Wandering King series will be happy to hear that I’ve started work on book 3.  I used the year’s hiatus to work on a contemporary novel.  After spending 5 years immersed in the ancient world, I needed to spend some time writing about today’s world.

The subtitle for book 3 hasn’t been selected yet.  If you’d like to weigh in on the subtitle or suggest one of your own, feel free to do so in the comments section.  Here are a couple that I’m mulling over…

  • Glorious Fall the Valiant
  • Black Hulled Ships
  • Perils of War
  • Land of Brave Men
  • The Sworn Band
  • Victory or Death

The lines “glorious fall the valiant” and “land of brave men,” come from the Spartan poet Tyrtaeus.  “Black hulled ships,” comes from Homer.  The “perils of war” comes from Thucydides.  “Sworn band” is a translation of the Spartan smallest military unit, the enomotia.  A variation for the subtitle could be “Sworn Band Leader,” which was an enomotarch, which is comparable to the modern title of lieutenant.

Where Book 3 is Going

In book 1, Summer, Harvest, War, you journeyed with Euryanax south to Libya and north to Corinth and Delphi.  In book 2, With This Shield, you followed him west to Italy and Sicily.

In book 3, you’ll venture east with our hero to Thrace, Scythia and Asia Minor (modern Turkey) where he’ll take part in a 6-year struggle called the Ionian Revolt.  Though not written about in any novels that I’m aware of, the Ionian Revolt is covered in Herodotus.  It was a revolt by the Greek cities in Asia Minor against the High King Darius of Persia, and is seen as the precursor to the more famous Persian War.a82f442a443b716d8ffa57bc15e88771

Before Eury goes east, he has some unfinished business to take care of at home in Sparta.  When we last left him, he was marching away from Athens with the Spartan army after they had just ousted the Athenian tyrant Hippias.  His uncle Leonidas had put him in charge of a handful of young Athenian boys, who we are told are hostages, but King Cleomenes wants to disguise this fact by having Eury train them in the agoge.

Book 3 opens with us learning that Eury has been given the responsibility of training a group of young boys from all over Hellas.  Cleomenes has expanded upon his original idea, and offered to teach the sons of his allies in Boeotia, Arcadia and Macedon the Spartan way of war.  Like many of the innovative things Cleomenes did in history, this is not a popular idea among his fellow, conservative Spartans.

Among Eury’s students are some young, historical personages, such as Alexandros son of King Amnytas (Alexander the Great’s great-great-great grandfather), Alcibiades of the Alcaemonids (grandfather of his famous namesake), and Leontiades, the future Theban commander at the Battle of Thermopylae.  Several others are based on minor characters mentioned by Herodotus in The Histories, some of whom, like Attaginus, end up allied with the Persians during the Persian War.

Eury’s cousin and chief rival and antagonist, Pausanias, is also training a ‘herd’ of boys, the salamanders.  As they have a 8-year head start on Eury’s ‘turtles,’ Pausanias’ salamanders are  a lean, mean pack of wolves, whose main goal in life is to kill Eury’s charges, of which they’ve already done away with 3 at the start of the story.

How Eury manages to help the turtles survive the agoge and one of Sparta’s most brutal rites of passage, the Festival of Artemis Orthia, make up the first two chapters of book 3, which I am working on now.

Diversion to Athens

If you’ll recall from book 2, after the Spartans overthrew the Athenian tyrant Hippias they left one of their puppets, a rich nobleman named Isagoras in charge.  Isagoras promptly exiled ‘the father of democracy’ Cleisthenes from Athens.  If you’ve read Herodotus, you know that Cleisthenes eventually returns and “took the common people into his party” enabling him to oust Isagoras.

Although I admire the Spartans, one of the things that is not so admirable about them is their aversion to democracy.  In defense of the Spartans, philosophers like Aristotle and Plato were not exactly keen on the Athenians version of ‘pure’ democracy either.  Many during the age (particularly wealthy landowners) viewed it as ‘rule by the unwashed, uneducated rabble.’  Cleomenes attempted to interfere in Athenian politics, where he wanted to get rid of Cleisthenes and reinstate Isagoras.

As the Athenian democracy survived, you can probably guess that Cleomenes’ plans backfire on him.  Once the Peloponnesian League and his co-King Demaratus learned what he was up to, they walked out on him.  Cleomenes had cleverly planned to have Sparta, Thebes and Chalcis attack Athens from three sides, but once the Spartans left with Demaratus, the Athenians rallied and beat the Thebans and men of Chalcis in two separate battles.

What role will Eury play in all of this?  You’ll see.

Reunited with Miltiades

Hopefully I’m not giving away too much of the story  by saying Euryanax is forced to leave Sparta.  When Eury does, he returns young Cimon to his father Miltiades, who as we learned at the end of book 2 was returning to the Thracian Chersonese to reclaim his lands there.

Why did I introduce Miltiades in book 2?  Readers familiar with Greek history will recognize him as the key strategos of the Athenian forces at the famous Battle of Marathon.  If there is a book 4 in the series, it’ll cover Marathon, where Miltiades has his historic day in sun.

For purposes of book 3, Herodotus also records that Miltiades was involved in some adventures prior to Marathon.  He captured the islands of Lemnos, Imbros and Tenedos in the Aegean Sea, taking them away from the Persian Empire.  Miltiades also has a part to play in …

The Ionian Revolt

hoplite3The last thing I’ll say about book 3 is that the same way that Eury was reunited with Theokles during the Battle at Phalerum in book 2, his friend will reappear in time for the Ionian Revolt’s famous Battle of Lade.  There will be some surprises regarding Theo and his mistress Stesilaus, so I’ll close here before I give anyway any spoilers.

The important thing to know is that book 3 is begun and I am excited to be working on it.  Don’t want to promise a completion date as that just adds the pressure of a deadline.  Will only say that it took three years to write book 1 and two years to complete book 2.  It’ll take a few years to deliver the story to you, but for me, this is the fun part.  Just like you, I’m curious to see what happens next to our hero, Euryanax.

Advertisements

The Spirit of the Ancient Olympics

ancientolymp

After reading about all of the pollution, doping and dangers of the Zika virus at the Rio Olympics, plus hearing about the endemic corruption rife in the International Olympic Committee (IOC), I can’t help but feel nostalgic about the simplicity of the ancient Greek Olympics.

Origins of the Olympics

While the Greeks attributed the origins of the Olympics to myths about Herakles, Pelops and Zeus, no one really knows how or why the ancient Olympics began.  As the Greeks used athletic competitions in conjunction with many of their festivals, it seems safe to assume that its origins were probably religious.

In Homer’s Iliad, after the death of Patroclus and Hector, both the Greeks and the Trojans included athletic competitions among the funeral celebrations.   In the case of Hector, the two warring sides even agreed to a truce while the games took place.  It seems the games were meant to honor the dead and were no doubt a long-standing tradition even in the time of the Trojan War (c. 1184 B.C.).

The games were held every 4 years outside the Greek city of Elis in a valley called Olympia.  Evidence of the game’s religious importance, is that Olympia was named after the highest mountain in Greece, Mt. Olympus, which was thought to be the home of the gods.

The games were dedicated to the king of the gods, Zeus.  Within the Temple of Zeus at Olympia stood a 43 foot tall statue of Zeus made out of gold and ivory.  The statue was sculpted by Phidias in 445 B.C. and was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.  Phidias also sculpted the statue of Athena that was inside another ancient wonder, the Parthenon at Athens.

In the 6th century B.C., the Greeks also instituted pan-Hellenic games at Delphi, Corinth and the Nemea River, but the Olympics continued to preserve its prominence as the pre-eminent celebration.  One of the interesting features of the Pythian Games in Delphi, were that they also included competitions for poetry, music and theater.

Date of the First & Last Olympics

The traditional date of the first Olympics is 776 B.C.   The games were so important to the Greeks they used 776 B.C. as their ‘year 1’ and measured time from that date.  For example, a person might mark their date of birth by saying, “I was born in the second year of the 23rd Olympiad.”

When the Roman Emperor Theodosius imposed Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 393 A.D., he put an end to the Olympic Games as they were viewed as honoring a pagan religion.

The Olympic Truce

Though we think of Greece as a country, in ancient times it consisted of hundreds of city-states who were constantly at war with one another.

One of the important aspects of the ancient games was that a universal truce existed across the Greek world during the games to allow athletes and spectators to travel safely to Olympia.  This ceasefire extended across Greece and its colonies located in Asia Minor, on the Black Sea, Africa, Italy, Sicily and Spain.

History records only one instance of this truce ever being violated, and even that case was contested.

Some interesting facts about the Olympics:

  • Average attendance was in the range of 20,000 to 40,000.
  • The use of the death penalty was suspended throughout Greece during the games.
  • Only free men who spoke Greek could compete in the games.
  • Women were not allowed to compete or attend.
  • There were no team sports, only individual events.

The Olympic Festival and Events

Athletes had to arrive at Olympia one month before the games for training.  Before the games began, they swore an oath that they would abide by the rules and that they had been in training for at least ten months.  While this is nothing compared to the training undergone by modern athletes, it meant that only the well-to-do could afford to compete.

The original Olympics lasted only one day, and consisted of only one event, the stadion or stade (from which we get the word ‘stadium’),  a sprint the length of the track, roughly 700 feet.

The diaulos, or two-stade race was introduced in 724 B.C.  It consisted of a single lap of the track, approximately 1,300 feet.

The original Olympic Games consisted entirely of track and field events.  A third foot race, the dolichos, was introduced in 720 B.C.  The length of the race was 18-24 laps or about 3 miles.  The runners began and finished in the stadium, but the course wound its way through the Olympic grounds.

As more events were added the Olympics were expanded to five days.  Two of the five days were spent conducting religious rituals.  The first day was devoted to swearing oaths and conducting sacrifices, and the last day to crowning the victors with an olive wreath and holding a great feast at which 100 bulls were sacrificed.

The last running event added to the Olympics (520 B.C.) was the hoplitodromos or hoplite race.  Runners ran either a stade or diaulos in full or partial armor, carrying a shield, helmet and greaves weighing roughly 50 pounds.  In a vase painting depicting the event, runners are shown leaping over fallen shields that runners dropped.

The 26 mile marathon was NOT an ancient Greek Olympic event.  The event was added when the modern Olympics were introduced in Athens in 1896.

Over the years, boxing, wrestling and pankration were added.  Initially soft leather was wrapped around boxers fingers, but over time this was changed to hard leather and sometimes metal was used.  Boxers fought on open ground.  These fights had no rounds or rest periods.  There were no rules against hitting a man when he was down.

A wrestler had to throw his opponent to the ground 3 times to win.  There were no weight classes, so heavier wrestlers had an advantage.61406c74cb

Pankration was a brutal combination of boxing and wrestling with very few rules.  It was not uncommon to break an opponent’s fingers or twist their ankles from their sockets. The bout ended when one pankrationist surrendered or died.  If a contestant died, he was declared the winner, post mortem.

The pentathlon consisted of wrestling the stadion, long jump, javelin thrown and discus throw.

At the conclusion of each event, a herald announced the name of the winner.  A judge placed a palm leaf in his hands while spectators applauded and threw flowers.  A ribbon of red wool was tied around his head and hands as a sign of victory.

Later events such as horse-racing and chariot-racing were added.  As very few people in Greece could afford a horse, it was confined to the wealthy.

Jockeys did not have stirrups on their saddle.  Individual riders did 6 laps (4.5 miles) of the race track.  There were separate races for full-grown horses and foals.

There were 2-horse and 4-horse chariot races, and a 12 lap race (9 mile) between carts drawn by a team of 2 mules.

The first woman ever to win an Olympic event, in 396 B.C. and again 392 B.C., was a Spartan named Cynisca, who won the 4-horse chariot race.  Although Cynisca did not drive the chariot and was probably not even present to watch, she owned the chariot, and the winner of the event was the owner, not the driver.

The official ceremony for all of the victors took place on the last day of the games in the Temple of Zeus.  A herald announced the name of each winner, his father and his city.  Then a judge placed a crown made of an olive branch on the winner’s head.  The olive branch was considered significant, because it was believed the olive trees at Olympia had been planted by the hero Herakles.

Victors were welcomed back to their home cities as heroes.  They could expect banquets in their honor, exemption from paying taxes, statutes erected in their honor and poems written about their exploits.  The real prize for athletes was eternal fame.

Penalties for Rule Breakers

Rules were rarely broken.  When they were, penalties included fines, flogging and exclusion from future games.  Fines were paid to the Temple of Zeus.  If the offender could not afford the fine, the city he represented was excluded from the next games.

Rule breakers had their names inscribed on the bases of statues of Zeus that led to the stadium called ‘Zanes.’  They were a reminder to future visitors about the identity of rule-breakers and a warning to all.

While Ryan Lochte did not cheat or break any rules at the last Olympics, I can’t help but think that his bad behavior goes against the spirit of the ancient Olympics.  Rather being flogged or having his name inscribed on a statue, he’ll lose his advertising endorsements, which I suppose is the modern equivalent of being fined.

While I still enjoy watching the Olympics, I can’t help but think that something has been lost over the ages.  Yes, there is still the athletic competition.  Just not the same spirit.

A Storm of Spears

Storm SpearsWriting a historical novel takes an enormous amount of research.

In the first book in The Wandering King series, Summer, Harvest, War, I included a suggested reading list in the back.  I am indebted to many of the authors listed, particularly the ancient writers Herodotus, Pausanias and Homer for my source material.

The second novel in the series, With This Shield, owes a debt of gratitude to an Aussie named Dr. Christopher Matthew and his book A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War.  Matthew’s work provided the basis for how my Spartan characters fought in the phalanx.

In chapter two of With This Shield, “The Art of War,” when Portheus and Theokles are teaching the men of Croton how to fight with shield and spear, I relied heavily on Matthew’s research.

A New Spin on an Old Fighting Style

Classical scholars have been battling for generations over how the ancient Greek hoplites engaged in combat. Matthew does an incredible job of analyzing hoplites’ weaponry, armor, stance, spacing and attack methods to provide fresh insights on the debate and provide some startling new conclusions.

For instance, he questions whether or not the phalanx attacked at a run or a walk.  At the Battle of Marathon, Herodotus claims the Athenians ran a mile before hitting the Persian line.  Was this even possible?  Matthew provides convincing evidence that the phalanx was more effective when it attacked at a much slower pace as it enabled them to move in a close order.  Attacking in a tight mass, shoulder to shoulder, allowed them to bring more spears to bear on the enemy.

As soon as a wall of hoplites begin running, they naturally spread out.  So it becomes impossible for a phalanx to charge at a run in close formation.  All of which makes a great deal of sense.

He also provides new insights as to why the phalanx could be arrayed anywhere from four to twelve ranks deep.  The accepted view was that the deeper the formation, the heavier the weight of the charge.  The hoplites in the rear ranks, pushed the men in the front ranks forward, resulting in a mighty crash of shield against shield and a rugby-like scrum.

Matthew refutes this belief.  He states that since the phalanx did not attack at a run there was no deafening collision, no scrum.  So there was no need for the men in the rear ranks to push against the men in front of them.  Instead, the depth of the phalanx merely meant that the men who fell in the front ranks were replaced by the men behind them.  The deeper the phalanx, the more replacements you had during the battle.

Instead of the battle involving a lot of pushing and shoving, Matthew claims the hoplites maintained their orderly rows, kept an arm’s length away from the opposing shieldwall, and calmly attacked one another with their spears.  All of which is an entirely new viewpoint.

Are Matthew’s Findings the Gospel on Hoplite Warfare?

Matthew examines the ancient sources, along with what recent scholarship has written, then tests these theories by using Greek hoplite re-enactors to find out how things actually worked.  When providing his conclusions, he is not afraid to contradict well-respected historians like Victor Davis Hanson and others.

What Matthew taught me, was how hoplites stood together, how they held their shields, how they moved forward and the various methods in which they could have wielded their spears.  All of which found its way into the pages of With This Shield.

As much as I admire Matthew’s new approach to hoplite warfare, I find it hard to buy into all of his conclusions.

He provides his findings from a scientific, almost sterile laboratory analysis. Real soldiers hardly perform under such conditions. Sure, it might make sense for the phalanx to walk toward the enemy, but that takes out the human element.  Soldiers are not laboratory mice.  If you’re being pelted by arrows and sling stones, you may very well be forced to run to avoid catching an arrow in the throat.

The primary assertion that Matthew makes, that I question, is how hoplites wielded their spear.  Greek art shows them using three primary attacks:  the overhead thrust, underarm thrust and underhand attack.  According to the author, by studying these various attack methods using re-enactors, he claims it would have been impossible for the ancient infantryman to hold his spear aloft over his head for long periods of time.  They simply would tire faster.  Matthew shows that the underarm thrust actually has a longer effective kill range.

Chigi_vaseOverhead Spears really Javelins?

In making his argument that the Greeks did not use the overhead thrust with their spears, he claims that all of the ancient pottery showing ancient warriors holding their spears aloft – are not spears at all – but javelins.  They are not thrusting spears, aiming at their opponent’s throat, instead they are throwing javelins.  I find this hard to swallow.

The famous Chigi Vase (shown here), depicts hoplites holding their spears aloft, using them to strike downward at the enemy.  Are they wielding spears or throwing javelins?  According the Matthew they’re throwing javelins.  Is he right?  You be the judge.

It might make more sense for hoplites to attack using the underarm thrust.  They might have a longer kill range, but do humans ever behave in an entirely logical fashion?

The Spartans trained constantly.  What if they didn’t tire so easily?  What if using the overhead thrust to go for the enemy’s throat was a more effective way of killing your opponent?  What if the overhead thrust – because it was so difficult – brought kudos upon the soldier?  What if using the underarm thrust was for amateurs and the overhead thrust was for professionals like the Spartans?  This is the approach I choose to use in With This Shield.

Conclusions

The ancient sources do not comment on these issues, so we are left to try to figure out on our own how hoplites really fought.  I admire Matthew’s ability to take a step back from the accepted assumptions, and look at hoplites from a fresh new perspective that is based on experiments with live re-enactors.

However, they are re-enactors, not real soldiers engaged in battlefield conditions. When you really come down to it, we’ll never fully understand the ancient mind or how the ancient soldier fought. Though I imagine Matthew’s book will provide plenty of discussion for classical scholars for years to come.

With This Shield: Historical Characters

othryades-mourant

Of the 60 men and women in With This Shield’s character listing, more than 40 are based on real people from ancient Greek history.  Below you will find some additional information on 15 of these historical figures.  Am also including the pronunciation of their name, as readers have told me they find this helpful.

SPOILER ALERT:  Though the data below will not give away the plot of With This Shield, in some cases it will tell you what became of the character in history.  I’ve been careful to leave out events covered in the next book in the series, so it does not give away too much information.

Aeschylus (S-kuh-lus)

While only a teenager in With This Shield, Aeschylus will grow up to be one of the most famous dramatic playwrights in Greek literature.  Twenty years later, he and his two brothers, Cynegeirus and Ameinias, would take part in the Battle of Marathon (490 B.C.).

Of Aeschylus’ 90 plays, only 7 survive.  One of his earliest works, The Persians, is based on his experiences in the naval Battle of Salamis (479 B.C.).  It is unique among the Greek tragic plays in that it describes a recent historical event.

Aristides (ah-ris-TĪDE-ēz)

In The Histories, Herodotus describes Aristides as the “best and most honorable man in Athens.”  In later years he was called “Aristides the Just.”

His life is recorded by the Greek author Plutarch in his book The Lives of Noble Greeks and Romans.  Plutarch states that Aristides and Themistocles were friends when they were young, but they had a falling out because “…both were in love with Stesilaus…”

My favorite story about Aristides occurred when he was older. The Athenians were voting on who to ostracize (the ‘winner’ being exiled for 10 years).  An illiterate voter who did not recognize Aristides approached him and asked him to write the name of Aristides on the ballot.  When the statesman asked the man if Aristides had ever wronged him, the man said, “No, I do not even know him, but it irritates me to hear everyone call him ‘the Just’.”  Honest to the end, Aristides wrote his own name on the ballot and was exiled.

Callicrates (kal-ē-KRAT-ēz)

Callicrates is only mentioned once by Herodotus, who says he was the most handsome man in the Greek army.  Thirty years after the events described in With This Shield, he would die at the Battle of Plataea (479 B.C.) while the Greeks were waiting for the Persians to charge and an arrow struck him in the eye.

Herodotus wrote:  “Having been carried to the rear, as he lay dying, Callicrates said he was  happy to die for Hellas, but it grieved him that he did not get a chance to prove his bravery, that he did no acts of valor worthy of the spirit he had in him to perform great deeds.”

Callimachus (kal-ah-MOCK-us)

Twenty years after the events described in With This Shield, Herodotus lists Callimachus as the polemarch (commanding officer) at the Battle of Marathon.  Callimachus led the Athenian right wing and was killed after the Persians were routed and the Greeks were chasing them to their ships.

In Athens, it was customary for the father of the bravest man killed in the battle to give the public funeral oration over the dead.  Callimachus’ father and the father of Aeschylus (whose brother Cynegeirus was also slain) argued over whose son was the bravest.  Callimachus’ father won.

Years later the Athenians erected a statue on the acropolis next to the Parthenon in his honor, called “The Nike of Callimachus” (the Victory of Callimachus).

Cimon (SĪ-mon)

Miltiades’ youngest son would go on to become one of the most famous statesmen and generals in Athenian history.  My depiction of Cimon is based on what we know from Herodotus and Plutarch, who claim he was a great supporter of the Spartans.  In later life he wore his hair long in the Spartan style, and named his first son, Lacedaemonius, after the Spartan homeland, Lacedaemonia.

After the Greco-Persian Wars, when the Greeks formed the Delian League to prevent future Persian incursions (the League would become the precursor to the Athenian Empire), Cimon was named as its principal commander.  Cimon led most of the League’s military operations from 475-463 BC.  During that period, he and Aristides drove the Spartans under Pausanias out of Byzantium (later called Constantinople and today called Istanbul).

His most famous military victory came at the Battle of Eurymedon River (466 B.C.), when he captured or destroyed over 200 Persian warships.

Cleisthenes (KLĪS-thenes)

Cleisthenes was the grandson of the tyrant of the Greek city of Sicyon (also named Cleisthenes).  Among his more famous descendants in the Alcmaeonid clan were the Athenian statesman Pericles (builder of the Parthenon) and the orator, statesman and general Alcibiades.

Cleisthenes is remembered in history as the ‘father of democracy.’  While some people consider his reformation of the Athenian constitution giving equal voting rights to all citizens a benevolent act, more than likely he did it to break the hold of the wealthy plains tribes, the Pedieis, over Athens, giving each of the tribes a level playing field.

Cleisthenes called his reforms “isonomia” (equality under the law).  It wasn’t until later they would become known as “demokratia” (rule by the people).

Cleomenes (KLE-ah-men-ēz)

Even though Cleomenes reigned for 30 years, during which time he was the key player in Spartan politics, and he accomplished numerous, slick diplomatic maneuvers, Herodotus does not paint a flattering picture of him.  He accuses him of being unscrupulous, a drunk and insane.  Historians tend to believe that whoever Herodotus spoke to in Sparta to gather information about Cleomenes, was probably among his worst enemies.

Cylon (SĪGH-on)

What we know about Cylon comes from the Syrian neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus, who wrote in his book, The Life of Pythagoras:

“Cylon was a leading citizen of Croton with all of the advantages of noble birth, fame and riches; but otherwise he was a difficult, violent and tyrannical man who eagerly desired to participate in the Pythagorean way of life.  He approached Pythagoras, but was rejected because of his character.  Unaccustomed to rejection, Cylon vowed to seek revenge and destroy Pythagoras and his followers.”

The story in With This Shield about the alliance between Cylon and Ninon, who used phony, forged documents, to discredit Pythagoras and inspire the populace to burn down Milo’s house are found in Iamblichus.  Whether there is any truth to the story, or if it was part of an oral tradition, is hard to say as Iamblichus wrote 700 years after Pythagoras’ death.

Elpinice (L-pin- ēz)

The daughter of Miltiades, Elpinice, is known from Plutarch’s Life of Pericles, where she appears twice.  On both occasions she confronts and rebukes Pericles regarding his political actions.

After the events described in With This Shield, she became the lover of the painter Polygnotus who used her likeness in a painting of Trojan women on a stoa in the Athenian agora.  Later, the richest man in Athens, Callias, fell in love with her.  At the time, her brother Cimon owed the Athenian state a large sum of money and he married her to Callias to pay off the family’s debts.

Gorgo (GORE-gō)

Euryanax’s cousin Gorgo is among the few women mentioned by Herodotus in The Histories.  She is notable for being the daughter of a Spartan king, the wife of a Spartan king and the mother of a Spartan king.

Though little is known about her childhood, like other Spartan girls from a noble family, she would have exercised daily, been well educated, could read and write, and do mathematics.  She also would have learned how to drive a chariot and taken part in Sparta’s many festivals, which included dancing and singing in a chorus.

Gorgo is presented by Herodotus and Plutarch as an extremely wise, well-respected woman, who offered sage advice on several occasions.  Her most famous remark came when an Athenian woman asked her, “Why are you Spartan woman the only ones who can rule over men?”  To which Gorgo replied:  “Because we are the only women to give birth to real men.”

Miltiades (mil-TĪE-ah-dēz)

Miltiades is among the more famous Athenians appearing in With This Shield.  Will resist talking about his most well-known exploits, which will be detailed in the third book in the series.

Miltiades’ family, the Philaids, claimed descent from the Trojan War hero Ajax the Great.  Miltiades’ father won the Olympic Games three times for chariot racing, making him so popular it inspired the jealousy of Athens’ tyrant Hippias, who had him murdered.

Miltiades’ uncle, known as Miltiades the Elder, established an Athenian colony in the Thracian Chersonese (today known as the Gallipoli peninsula) where he set himself up as a tyrant.  When Miltiades the Elder died the tyranny passed to Miltiades’ brother Stesagoras, and after his death, to Miltiades.  Miltiades cemented good relations with the Thracian tribes in the area by marrying Hegesiplye, the daughter of the Thracian King Olorus.

The Greek historian Thucydides, author of The History of the Peloponnesian War, was a Philaid.  His father was named Olorus.  Whether it was the same Olorus related by marriage to Miltiades, is unknown.

Othryades (oh-THRAY-dēz)

As noted in the first two books of The Wandering King, Othryades was famous in Sparta as the lone survivor of the Battle of Champions (540 B.C.) between 300 Spartans and 300 Argives.

According to Herodotus, after the battle Othryades was so upset that his companions had all been killed, he committed suicide.  My apologies to Herodotus for letting Othryades live.

The image at the top of this post is a photograph of a sculpture done in 1779 by the French artist Sergel, titled “Othryades the Spartan Dying.”  It is on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris.

Stesilaus (STES-ah-lāy-us)

The “beautiful and brilliant” Stesilaus from the island of Keos is mentioned in Plutarch’s Lives as the cause of the lifelong enmity between the two Athenian statesmen Aristides and Themistocles.

Like Othryades, I’ve taken some creative license with Stesilaus by turning “him” into a “her.”  It’s not that I’m anti-gay.  Not in the slightest.  I just did not think the story would read as well if two of my characters were fighting over a beautiful young boy.  That said, it’s important to realize the role homosexuality played in ancient Greece.

Says Plutarch of Aristides and Themistocles, “They were both in love with Stesilaus of Keos, the most beautiful and brilliant of youths; whom they both cherished so passionately, that not even after the boy’s beauty had faded did they lay aside their rivalry.”

Themistocles (tha-MIS-tōe-clēz)

While I don’t know how many readers are familiar with Themistocles, he is among the most famous Athenian statesmen and generals of all time.  I don’t want to reveal too much about him, as his story will continue in the next book in the series.

My depiction of Themistocles in With This Shield is taken from a tidbit of information I picked up while reading Plutarch’s Life of Themistocles.  Plutarch describes the young Themistocles by saying, “The wildest colts make the best horses.”

He also says that Themistocles was thrown out of his family by his father Neocles for drinking and carousing.  Though this information about Themistocles is debated, it helped form my characterization of him as brilliant, but somewhat wild and unscrupulous.

Plutarch also says that Themistocles was among the first people in history to become a lawyer to launch a political career.

Xanthippus (zan-TIP-ē-us)

Xanthippus was a wealthy aristocrat in Athens, famous in history as the father of the statesmen Pericles, who built the Parthenon and led Athens into its golden age.

Xanthippus married a niece of Cleisthenes named Agariste (Pericles’ mother).  Although not an Alcmaeonid, he became closely linked with their family.

Like Aristides, Themistocles, Miltiades, Callimachus and Aeschylus he would fight in the Battle of Marathon.  His greatest military victory would come in the last engagement of the Greco-Persian Wars as the commander of the Athenian naval forces at the decisive Battle of Mycale (479 B.C.).

Character request?

Want to know more about a character in The Wandering King series?  Let me know, and I’ll do my best to comply.

The Good, the Bad, the Mediocre: Amazon Reviews

 Cartoon%20of%20the%20Day

Good Reviews: The Bubbles in the Champagne

Since publishing The Wandering King in April of 2013, approximately 2,000 copies have been distributed through various booksellers.

Ninety-seven percent of the sales have been e-books rather than hard copies, and 99% have been through Amazon. A distant second is Barnes & Noble (20 sales), and behind them is Apple iBookstore (2 sales). Dead last is Smashwords (1 sale).

The success The Wandering King has received on Amazon has been largely due to the reviews.  The average rating of your combined reviews gives your book a ranking under the ‘top rated’ listing and a special spot on Amazon’s web page.  This ranking has placed my book in the #1 to #3 spot under the Ancient Greek History category for the last 9 months.

To date, the book has received 40 reviews on Amazon.  Here is a breakdown of the number of 5-star through 1-star reviews:

                (28) 5 stars
                (9) 4 stars
                (2) 3 stars
                (1) 1 star

It has been a delight to read reviews such as:

  • Turning the last page of a good book, ending a good read, is like saying goodbye to a dear friend. One relishes the experience of both and longs for more time together…                    

                                       Dianne Smith

  • Many thanks to the guy who wrote this book. Really enjoyed it and have recommended it to all my friends. The book is something special, great character development; this man can really write.  

                                      Steve Fowler

  • Well-crafted historical fiction both educates and entertains the reader. Stephen Marte’s ‘The Wandering King’ achieves those goals. I’m looking forward to reading more of his story…

                                      Gregory Stoltz

  • Fantastic story, absolutely loved this. It is the story of a young Spartan growing from boyhood to manhood. The author portrays a character raised in a harsh world, but who still dares to defy tradition and what is expected of him. Brilliant, I cannot wait for the sequel…

                                      Tomas

A heart-felt thank you to everyone who has taken the time to write a review.  You have greatly contributed to the success of The Wandering King.

I do not know Dianne, Steve, Greg or Tomas, or the vast majority of my reviewers, which makes reading their reviews immensely gratifying.  Knowing people you’ve never met in Pittsburgh, Dallas or Portland enjoyed the story so much they can’t wait to read more, is music to any writer’s ears.

Admittedly, I do know four of my reviewers. My mom, my brother and two friends have reviewed The Wandering King, but they all read the book and enjoyed it, so their reviews are legitimate. Knowing Amazon will delete your book and toss you off their site if you try planting fake reviews, is all the motivation any author should need to play it honest.

I wish I could get more of my family, friends and co-workers to post reviews. When someone tells me they’ve read the book and loved it, my stock response is: “Put it in writing. Post a review.” Unfortunately, the majority of people who have told me they’ve read the book, never post anything.

Bad Reviews: The Worm in the Apple

The Wandering King has received only one bad review. After a year of nothing but good reviews, I received this in May 2014:

  • This is one I put down early. I’ve read Herodotus a number of times and have wondered what Doreius [sic] and His [sic] adventures to the lotus eaters could have looked like. The author tells his story rather than shows. The writing lacks even basic description. I do not have any idea where the other reviewers gave this book even a score higher than 2. It’s that briutal [sic].

                                    Sparta Fan

If Sparta Fan had an axe to grind with me, he succeeded.  His 1-star review succeeded in knocking The Wandering King off its perch as the #1 top-rated Ancient Greek History book on Amazon.  Seems hard to believe one review could knock me out of the top seat, but it did, which has adversely affected book sales.

As a professional writer who has spent a lifetime researching The Wandering King and three years writing and polishing his work, it is distressing to read, “the author tells his story rather than shows” and “the writing lacks even basic description.”

I refer Sparta Fan to the first chapter of the book, which appears here in my blog, The Planistai. To quote a sample of showing versus telling:

  • While we waited, I noticed Gorgo was trembling beside me. “Are you all right?”
    She looked at me wide-eyed. “I am so excited!”

If I wanted to tell the reader how Gorgo was feeling, all I had to do was say, “Gorgo was excited.”  Instead, these two lines show her trembling and wide-eyed.

Also in the same chapter appears:

  • “No girl is going to tell me what to do,” my cousin Pausanias snorted. Especially not the daughter of Cleomenes. Pausanias was a husky boy, with a thick neck, gloomy, deep-set dark eyes, a face full of pimples and a broad, pug nose that had always made me think of him as a wart hog.

If I wanted to tell the reader Pausanias did not like Gorgo, all I had to say was, “Pausanias did not like Gorgo.” Instead you see how Pausanias feels through his dialogue. Also in the paragraph is a brief description of Pausanias’ appearance. Why Sparta Fan would state the book “lacks even basic description” makes me wonder if he even read it.

Rather than continue to quote additional excerpts from The Wandering King, if you want to make up your own mind on the matter, please read the sample chapter on this site: The Planistai. It’s free.

I apologize if I sound defensive. I am. Writing is an intensely personal experience. Your books are like your children. Insult my son and like any good parent, my reaction is to leap to his defense.

A friend who read Sparta Fan’s review called it a ‘hatchet job.’ In looking over the other books Sparta Fan’s has reviewed on Amazon, I see he’s highly rated a number of books by British author David Gemmell. I’ve tried to read Gemmell’s work, but I don’t care for his style. I would describe his writing as, ‘historical fantasy,’ which doesn’t interest me. To be fair to Sparta Fan, I am guessing he was expecting historical fantasy like Gemmell’s work and instead got historical fiction. 

In the end, what I’ve learned from reading Sparta Fan’s review is that everyone has different preferences, and you can’t expect to please everyone.  It’s like looking at a painting by Picasso. One person sees an odd collection of blocks and colors that remind them of fingerpainting, while another person sees a woman weeping that is so evocative the viewer is moved to tears.

I suppose all I can do is be thankful that the majority of my readers appear to enjoy my writing.  On the flip side, I’ve learned that reading negative reviews can destroy your motivation.  Who wants to spend all of the time and energy required to write a book if some stranger with an axe to grind is going to piss all over your work?

Mediocre Reviews: The Flavorless, Chewy Steak

The Wandering King has only received two 3-star reviews. In one, the reviewer had nothing but good things to say about the book.

  • The Wandering King is an entertaining read that paints a different picture of the principal families of Sparta than other books of the same genre. Interesting stories, good detail, and enough action to keep the pages turning.

                                          David Nolletti    

David appears to have enjoyed the story.  Why he gave it an average rating is a mystery.  Perhaps to him a 3-star rating means it met his expectations or maybe some people are just tough reviewers.

The only other 3-star review commented that the book was “entertaining” but he found it troublesome that I used some modern language that he did not feel was appropriate to ancient Greece. Wish he had given some examples. If he had, I would have corrected them.

* * * * *

Where initially I loved seeing a new book review appear, I am now a lot more tentative about reading them.  It’s tempting not to look them at all lest it sap my energy to keep writing.  That said, I have no intentions of quitting.  Yes, I write so others will read what I’ve written, but first and foremost, I write to create something I would enjoy reading, and that feeling is not likely to go away.

If others have had similar experiences or advice regarding book reviews, would be curious to hear them.

With This Shield

spartan shieldOne of the most gratifying things about reading the reviews on Amazon for The Wandering King are the comments from people that are looking forward to reading the second book in the series.  Therefore I wanted give my small band of followers a sneak preview as to where I am going with book two, titled:  With This Shield.

The title comes from a famous rite of passage in Spartan culture.  When a young man graduated from the agoge and was about to take his place in the army, his closest female relative, usually his mother, presented him with his shield, with these words:

“Return with this shield,
or carried home dead upon it.”

Victory or death.  Come home a winner or don’t come back alive.  That may sound like harsh advice, particularly from your mother, but the Spartans were so out-numbered by their helot serfs, their very survival depended entirely on military superiority.  In fact, after just one catastrophic loss on the battlefield, at Leuctra in 371 B.C., the entire Spartan system collapsed and never recovered.

Magna Graecia

Book one in The Wandering King series, Summer, Harvest, War, was divided into three sections:  Libya, Corinth and Delphi, and followed the main character Euryanax’s adventures in those three places.  All of which gave me a chance to introduce readers to the Spartan way of life; Euryanax’s father Dorieus’ rivalary with his half-brother Cleomenes; and Dorieus’ initial attempts to build a Spartan colony overseas.

With This Shield is divided into two sections: Magna Graecia and Attica.

The first section follows Dorieus, Euryanax and their army to southern Italy and Sicily, which in ancient times were known collectively as Magna Graecia.  During the Archaic Period of Greek history (750 – 480 B.C.), the Greeks colonized so much of southern Italy and Sicily they considered it an extension of Greece, and because the land was so rich compared to the motherland, it became known as Magna Graecia, which is Latin for ‘Greater Greece.’

The War Between Sybaris and Croton

In this section of the book, Euryanax recounts the war between the Greek colonies of Sybaris and Croton, which according to Herodotus, Dorieus may have taken part in.  Not all the ancient sources agree as to whether or not Dorieus and his band of Spartans actually took part in this war, but as it took place at the same time Dorieus would have been passing by on his way to Sicily, I can’t help but think, what Spartan general would have been able to resist getting involved in a war with the wealthiest city in the world, particularly when Dorieus needed money to finance his colony?

Among the few ancient authors to comment on the war between Sybaris and Croton was a Greek named Athenaeus living in Egypt in 200 A.D.  Athenaeus wrote a book called the Deipnosophistae, or The Banquet of the Learned, in which he discusses food, wine, luxury, music, art, sexual habits and literary gossip.  The Deipnosophistae is primarily important to us today for its references to hundreds of earlier Greek writers, most of whose work have been lost over time.  Some of the passages Athenaeus quotes are the only extant references we have for some of the missing works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Heraclides.

Athenaeus is important to me, because he is one of the few sources of information on the fabled city of Sybaris, which was legendary in ancient times as the wealthiest, most luxurious city of the age; sort of the Sodom & Gomorrah of its time.  As the story goes, Sybaris controlled one of the largest tracts of fertile farmland in southern Italy and was the leader of an alliance of 25 cities.  Dorieus and Euryanax were passing by on their way to Sicily, when Sybaris came into conflict with its neighbor Croton, and the Spartans became embroiled in this little known war.

The Philosopher Pythagoras

What interested the ancient Greeks about this particular conflict was Sybaris’ reputation for wealth and excess, and Croton’s reputation for its number of Olympic champions, good health and dutiful wives.  Croton owed much of its reputation to the philosopher Pythagoras.  Everyone has heard of the Pythagorean Theorem, but oddly enough, the mathematical equation attributed to Pythagoras has little basis in reality.  Historians agree that the theorem (that the square of the hypotenuse on a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides), was in use by the Babylonians, Egyptians and Indians hundreds of years before Pythagoras was born.  It is possible Pythagoras learned about the theorem during his travels to the Far East and brought it to the Greek world, but it’s not the most interesting thing we know about the man that is credited with inventing the word ‘philosophy,’ love of wisdom.

Pythagoras was famous in the ancient world for his teachings on science, music, medicine, astronomy, politics, math, religion and everyday life.  He preached equality for women, was a vegetarian and believed in reincarnation.  He had a great influence on later philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, and started his own religion.  During his lifetime his followers were called Cenobites, which meant, ‘the common life,’ but later they became known as the Pythagoreans, and greatly influenced the ancient world for hundreds of years after Pythagoras’ death.

Although Pythagoras was born on the island of Samos, he left during the turmoil caused by the tyrant Polycrates of Samos, ventured to Egypt and Babylon, eventually settling in Italy at Croton where he was responsible for writing their code of laws.  In some sense, Pythagoras is a mythical, somewhat Christ-like figure, as his views differed radically from what most Greeks believed, his teachings inspired a religious cult, and he came to a tragic end.

Though Herodotus never mentions a meeting between Pythagoras, Dorieus or Euryanax, there is no question that the famous philosopher was living in Croton at the same time my heroes stopped in southern Italy on their way to Sicily.  Were Euryanax and the Spartans attracted to Pythagoras’ teachings?  No one knows.  All we know is that according to Herodotus, Sybaris’ army amounted to over 300,000 men.  Herodotus does not give us a figure for the army fielded by Croton and Dorieus’ Spartans, but it was miniscule in comparison.  To the Greeks, the war between Sybaris and Croton was remembered as a clash between the forces of excess and the forces of discipline.

A Failed Attempt at Democracy

I’m not going to tell you what happened during the war, except to say that one of the additional causes, beyond Sybaris and Croton’s obvious differences in lifestyle, was a difference in political philosophy.  Sybaris was ruled by a tyrant named Telys.  Croton was ruled by an oligarchy called the Thousand.  The ancient sources such as Strabo and Diodorus hint that Croton was among the first cities in the ancient world to flirt with the idea of democracy.  Unquestionably it was a failed attempt, possibly led by Pythagoras and his followers.

What is fascinating to me about what was going on in southern Italy is that my hero Euryanax got to witness these political struggles between tyranny, oligarchy and democracy, and this struggle provides the backdrop for what occurs in the first section of With This Shield.

I cannot reveal what happens to Euryanax in Italy and Sicily, but a reading of Herodotus will let you know that the Spartans didn’t stay in Magna Graecia.  Euryanax eventually returned to Sparta, where in the second section of With This Shield, he is sent with an expedition of Lacedaemonians to free the Athenians from the oppressive rule of the tyrant Hippias.

The Democratic Revolution at Athens

The second section of the book is titled ‘Attica,’ which is the name of the Greek province where the city of Athens is located.  Why not call it ‘Athens?’  Because the action takes place in the city of Athens along with several additional locations in Attica, such as the plain of Phalerum, the villages of Braunon and Piraeus, and by the Cephissus River.

I’ve always been amazed that there aren’t dozens of books on the market regarding how the world’s first democracy was formed at Athens.  History books touch on the subject, but there’s never been a novel depicting the revolution that occurred in Athens around approximately 508 B.C., a revolution triggered according to Herodotus, by a small Spartan expeditionary force that was sent by Euryanax’s uncle King Cleomenes to overthrow Athens’ tyrant Hippias.

Herodotus is among our few sources for what happened at Athens, and he is maddeningly vague about the details.  All of which allows me to create my own plot based on the details we do know.  Suffice it to say, it makes for a good story.

Like the first book in the series, With This Shield is first and foremost an adventure story that describes Euryanax’s wanderings around the ancient world during a pivotal period of  history.  On a deeper level, With This Shield is about the end of the Age of Tyrants and the emergence of democracy on the world stage.

While we take things like freedom of speech and democracy for granted today, they were prized commodities in the ancient world, things people fought and died for.  One of the things that may surprise you about the original democracy at Athens is how many people, Socrates and Plato among them, distrusted ‘rule by the people.’  To them, it meant rule by the uneducated, unwashed masses.

As of December 2013, I’m approximately 3/4’s of the way through writing With This Shield.  I hesitate to promise an exact date as to when it will be available, but will say that it’s my goal to have it completed in 2014.  Stay tuned…

Sword & Sandal Movie Reviews

When I was doing my student teaching, my 9th graders’ mantra was, “Why do we have to learn how to read?  Can’t we just watch the video?”

As you are reading this blog, I take it for granted that you enjoy reading, but like my 9th graders, you probably enjoy watching a good flick too.  The following, in no particular order, are some of my favorite picks and pans for films dealing with ancient history.

The links on the movie titles will take you to the movie reviews found on Rotten Tomatoes.  If you’ve never been to the site, it gives you access to all the top critics’ reviews.  Below the link are the number of critics that reviewed the movie, their average rating (out of 100), the number of moviegoers that rated the movie, and their rating, followed by my grade.

gladiator_ver3_xlg

Gladiator (2000)
166 critics 77%
34M moviegoers 85%
me 90%

One of the best movies about the ancient world of all time.  I give it credit for starting a renaissance in movies about ancient Greece and Rome.  Though I enjoyed the film, my only real problem with it, was where it deviated from history.  Emperor Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son Commodus, but died of an illness in Vienna at age 58.  He had made Commodus his co-emperor three years before his death.  He also had 13 children, five of whom out-lived him.  Commodus was known for his love of the gladitorial games, where he would do things like shoot hundreds of animals with his bow from the safety of his box seat in the coliseum (on one such occasion he shot 100 lions) or he would have groups of sick citizens chained together and club them to death himself (or he would collect his own wounded soldiers and slay them with a sword).  Commodus was not killed by the fictional Maximus, but was assassinated by his own officers.  They tried poisoning him, but after Commodus vomited the food, they strangled him to death.  Despite these inaccuracies, you can’t beat the movie’s opening battle scene or the gladitorial scenes.


300a300
(2006)
226 critics 60%
1.4M moviegoers 88%
me 40%

Though I enjoyed parts of this movie, I spent the vast majority of my time in the theater groaning.  What does one expect from a movie based on a comic book?  For example, the Spartans did not go bare-chested into battle.  They wouldn’t have lasted long if they had.  Too, Xerxes did not shave his head, wear nose-rings or a loin cloth.  Take a look at a piece of ancient artwork that depicts the Persians and you’ll see that they wore long beards and pants.  The thing that I found most disappointing was how they depicted the ancient phalanx.  In the battle scenes they started formed up in a shieldwall, but as soon as the fight would begin, the Spartans would break ranks and devolve into a Matrix-like slow motion, hack ‘n slash fest.  What made the Spartans invincible was their training, heavy armor, and their ability to fight in an impenatrable, close order, shoulder to shoulder formation.  It’s diappointing that in Hollywood it’s more important to show comic book blood spraying across the screen than an actual phalanx in action.

300

The 300 Spartans (1962)
N/R critics
55K moviegoers 72%
me 95%

According to Frank Miller, who wrote the comic book that was the basis for the movie ‘300,’ he was inspired by a film he’d seen as a young boy, ‘The 300 Spartans.’  Like Miller, I’d seen the same film as a kid and loved it.  All of which makes me wonder why Miller injected charging rhinos, dual sword wielding ninjas and an oversized giant, as they weren’t anywhere to be found in the original.  I suppose that’s what’s known as creative license.  The sad thing is, today’s young people, whose knowledge of ancient events may come from the movies, are going to have a horribly distorted view of actual events.  Though the 1962 version of ‘The 300 Spartans’ has no special effects, and was done on a low budget, it’s a fairly accurate depiction of what happened at Thermopylae.  Richard Egan, though not as muscled as Gerard Butler, is a better actor, and the film includes Sir Ralph Richardson as Themistocles (a crucial character the Frank Miller version leaves out), and David Farrar as a very convincing Xerxes.  I can do without ‘300s’ pumped up pecs and digital effects.  I’ll take a more historically accurate film any day.

troy

Troy (2004)
221 critics 54%
819K 72%
me 40%

As The Iliad is one of my favorite pieces of literature, when the movie ‘Troy’ came out, I rushed to the movie theater, where I was promptly disappointed.  In the credits they state the movie is ‘based on The Iliad.’  A better description would have been, ‘loosely based.’  The producers took so many liberties with the Trojan War, that anyone that loves Homer’s epic poems will hardly recognize the story.  For one, Brad Pitt is no Achilles.  He’s too small.  The very sight of Achilles struck fear into the hearts of his enemies.  Probably the only hysteria Brad Pitt inspired during the shooting of ‘Troy’ is when the filmmakers saw the size of his bar tab.  Sure, they got right the part about Paris stealing Helen, but they botched what happens to each.  In the original, Paris dies and Helen is reclaimed by her husband Menelaus and the two of them live a long happy life together.  In the movie, Menelaus dies and Paris and Helen run off together.  In the ancient Greek version, marriage is sacosant.  You steal someone’s wife, you are doomed.  In Hollywood, you steal someone’s wife you ride off into the sunset together.  I could go on and on about all of the things ‘Troy’ gets wrong, but reliving it is just too depressing.  Even though The Iliad has been a classic for 3,000 years, the filmmakers seemed to think they could improve on the original.  They didn’t.

Alexander

Alexander (2004)
194 critics 16%
236K moviegoers 39%
me 70%

I’m not a big fan of Alexander the Great, but I’ve read enough about him to know that Oliver Stone did a wonderful job of researching his story and for the most part stuck to the actual historical facts.  Where the movie goes horribly awry is the casting of Colin Farrell as Alexander.  It’s one of the worst acting performances I’ve ever seen.  Remember George C. Scott in the movie ‘Patton’?  Now there was a general.  You can understand why his soldiers followed him across Europe.  I couldn’t imagine a poodle following Colin Farrell even if he was loaded up with doggie treats, much less the Macedonian army following him across 16 countries.  If you manage to block out Colin Farrell, the rest of the movie isn’t bad.  Oliver Stone pays a great deal of attention to Alexander’s generals, troops like the Silver Shields, and correctly arms the phalanx with the Macedonian’s long spears called the sarissa.  The depiction of Babylon, though probably computer generated, is awe-inspiring, as is the Battle of Gaugamela, that is if you delete Colin Farrell’s less-than-inspiring speech.  Farrell spends so much time weeping in the film, instead marching his army back to Greece, he could have sailed them back on all his tears.

Alexander Burton

Alexander the Great (1956)
6 critics 35%
5,325 moviegoers 56%
me 75%

Though somewhat old, this is a much better movie about Alexander the Great, for one big reason:  it has the British actor Richard Burton playing the leading role.  It lacks today’s special effects, it’s not a 3 hour Oliver Stone extravaganza, and it only touches on some of Alexander’s life, but it does have one great scene.  When Alexander was in Asia Minor at a city called Gordium, he encountered something known as the famous ‘Gordian Knot.’  As the story goes, whoever could untie this huge, tangled mess of ropes, would conquer all of Asia.  Richard Burton looks at the knot, draws his sword, and in one swing cuts the knot in two.  Not a word spoken, but a brilliant scene.

I, Claudius (1976)
133 reviews on Amazon (105 gave it 5-stars)I Claudius
me:  95%

I, Claudius is a made-for-TV, BBC mini-series, based on the novel of the same name by Robert Graves.  I, Claudius is one of the best programs about ancient Rome ever produced.  If you’re looking for a Gladiator-like action movie, pass I, Claudius by. If you’re looking for an intelligent, Masterpiece Theater-like inside look at the palace intrigue, murder, and back-stabbing that went on in the Imperial Roman family during the reign of Augustus Caesar, then this show was made for you.  The members of the royal family stop at nothing, including poisoning their own relatives, to jockey for position in the royal line of succession.  Augustus’ wife Livia, played marvelously by Sian Phillips, is the most fiendish of the bunch.  I lost track of all of the people she murdered to ensure her son Tiberius was selected as the next emperor.  What’s sad about all of this is that some extremely worthy, noble, talented people like Germanicus end up getting knocked off in the mad grab for power.  Ironically, Claudius survives all of this mayhem because he’s lame and he has a stutter.  Livia and the rest of the royal family consider him an idiot, so after the family does each other in, the only one left with royal blood to claim the throne is Claudius, played to perfection by British actor Derek Jacobi.  If you’ve heard about the antics of people like Caligula, Messalina and Nero and want to find out why they are so infamous, I, Claudius gives you the inside track.  While the program is not on Rotton Tomatoes, the link above is to its page on Amazon.  Amazon Prime owners can watch it for free.

Agora1Agora (2009)
89 critics 53%
21,100 moviegoers 64%
me 85%

This movie did not do well with critics, but I came away thinking it was an enjoyable film about a period of ancient history I knew nothing about.  It follows the life of a Greek philosopher, astronomer and mathematican named Hypatia played by Rachel Weisz.  The story takes place in the city of Alexandria in Egypt and has a great deal to do with the emergence of Christianity and the Christians persecution of the pagan religions.  From what I’ve read by people who know more than I do about the 4th century A.D., the movie is a bit heavy handed when it comes to the Christians, who appear more like modern day Taliban, and it seems the Library of Alexandria and lighthouse were already destroyed.  As I was ignorant of those facts, I found Hypatia’s story interesting and the depiction of Alexandria quite fascinating.

Jason

Jason and the Argonauts  (1963)
35 critics 94%
22,100 moviegoers 72%
me 90%

As a young person this was one of my favorite movies of all time.  Nice to see it received a good response by the critics, and somewhat surprising audiences did not appreciate it as well.  Though the special effects of the titan Talos, the harpies and the ‘children of the hydra’s teeth’ look rather dated now, at the time, they were the work of the master of stop motion animation, Ray Harryhausen.  There are no actors in the film you’ve ever heard of, nor is the acting anything special, it’s just a fun adventure story.

ulyssesdouglasUlysses (1954)
N/R critics
1,710 moviegoers 46%
me 95%

This is an oldie but goodie, starring Kirk Douglas as Ulysses.  Similar to other films done during the period, they look faded now, but the producers made a strong attempt to stick to the original story from Homer’s Odyssey.  The scenes where Ulysses and his crew are captured by the cyclops, when he listens to the song of the Sirens, and when he finally returns home to slay the suitors are classics.

The Odyssey (1997)
N/R critics
7,630 moviegoers 60%
me 60%

This was a made-for-television miniseries starring Armand Assanti as Odysseus (Ulysses).  It seemed to go on longer than Odysseus’ ten-year voyage home.  Though not as lavish, nor did it include Vanessa Williams, Isabella Rossellini or Bernadette Peters, I much preferred the original with Kirk Douglas.

Spartacus  (1960)spartacus1
49 critics 96%
75,700 moviegoers 79%
me 90%

This is another golden oldie starring Kirk Douglas, this time as the gladiator turned rebel leader, Spartacus.  He is supported by a great cast including Sir Laurence Olivier and Jean Simmons and benefits from the directorial talents of Stanley Kubrick.  There’s plenty of sword play and battle scenes that include a cast of thousands, but my favorite moment in the film comes when Spartacus is training to be a gladiator.  As Jean Simmons, playing a slave named Varinia, is pouring wine for Spartacus, as he takes the cup, he gently caresses her hand.  It’s an extremely small, tender moment in a 3-hour spectacle, but it’s that sort of attention to detail about the characters that make it a great film.

Clash of the Titans (1981)
38 critics 66%
55,900 moviegoers 68%
me 40%

This is a horrible movie about the mythical hero Perseus starring Harry Hamlin.  What a great actor like Sir Laurence Olivier is doing in this film, I have no clue.  It also includes the stop motion animation by Ray Harryhausen, but in this film, it’s pretty lackluster stuff.

Clash of the Titans (2010)
238 critics 28%
280K moviegoers 43%
me 30%

Why anyone would want to re-make a bad movie is a mystery.  The only good thing I can say about this film is that Wrath of the Titans (2012) and Immortals (2011) are worse.

Ben Hur (1959)ben_hur
36 critics 89%
103K moviegoers 81%
me 95%

What list of films about the ancient world would be complete without mentioning Ben Hur.  The chariot race is probably one of the most famous scenes in movie history.  Am just glad Charlton Heston was not toting a rifle throughout the film.

The Ten Commandments (1956)
32 critics 91%
58K moviegoers 83%
me 95%

Another great Charlton Heston film, this time about Moses.  When I first saw it as a young person, I could not help but think Moses was an idiot for abandoning the war-loving Egyptians in favor of the poor Judeans.  I must not have been paying enough attention in church.

Julius Caesar (1970)
N/R critics
2,660 moviegoers 40%
me 80%

Yet another Heston film, this time in the role of Mark Anthony in the Shakespearan version of Julis Caesar.  It’s not bad if you can sit through the old English.  The 1953 version starring Marlon Brando, Sir John Gielgud and James Mason received vastly better reviews.

Cleopatra (1963)Cleopatra 2
26 critics 46%
20,000 moviegoers 70%
me 70%

I’m not sure I’ve ever been able to sit through this 3-hour epic starring Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra and Richard Burton as Mark Antony.  The climactic sea battle between Antony and Octavian is obviously between toy models and so bad it’s almost comical.  As I recall, the love affair that erupted during the filming between Taylor and Burton (both were married to other people) and resulting scandal eclipsed interest in the actual movie.  It’s $44M cost ($300M today) made it the most expensive movie ever made.