The First Clash

The Miraculous Greek Victory at Marathon and Its Impact on Western Civilization

De: James Lacey

Narrado por: Mike Cooper

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER

Marathon—one of history’s most pivotal battles. Its very name evokes images of almost superhuman courage, endurance, and fighting spirit. But until now, the story of what happened at Marathon has been told exclusively through the narrow viewpoint of specialists in antiquity. In this eye-opening new book, acclaimed journalist Jim Lacey, both a military historian and a combat veteran, takes a fresh look at Marathon and reveals why the battle happened, how it was fought, and whether, in fact, it saved Western civilization.

Lacey brilliantly reconstructs the world of the fifth century B.C. leading up to the astonishing military defeat of the Persian Empire by the vastly undermanned but determined Greek defenders. Using the seminal work of Herodotus as his starting point, Lacey reconstructs the tactical and strategic scenario of the battle, including how many combatants each side might have used and who actually led the Greeks. He also disputes the long-repeated myths of Athenian inexperience and effete Persian arrogance.

With the kind of vivid detail that characterizes the best modern war reportage, Lacey shows how the heavily armed Persian army was shocked, demoralized, and ultimately defeated by the relentless assault of the Athenian phalanx, which battered the Persian line in a series of brutal attacks. He reveals the fascinating aftermath of Marathon, how its fighters became the equivalent of our “Greatest Generation,” and challenges the view of many historians that Marathon ultimately proved the Greek “Western way of war” to be the superior strategy for fighting—and winning—battles to the present day.

Immediate, visceral, and full of new analyses that defy decades of conventional wisdom, The First Clash is a superb interpretation of a conflict that indeed made the world safe for Aristotle, Plato, and our own modern democracy. But it was also a battle whose legacy and lessons have often been misunderstood—perhaps, now more than ever, at our own peril.

* This audiobook includes a downloadable PDF containing illustrated maps and the Dramatis Personae, from the printed book.

PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio.

©2011 James Lacey (P)2023 Random House Audio

Reseñas de la Crítica

"On the occasion of the 2500th anniversary of the battle of Marathon, defense analyst James Lacey has not only offered a fresh appraisal of the battle, but in a larger sense demonstrated how the Athenian victory established a precedent of Western military advantage for subsequent millennia. With a fresh eye to tactics, strategy, and military organization, grounded with direct experience with troops on the battlefield, the result is not only new understanding of how the Athenians managed to win, but also a greater appreciation of the beginning of a long tradition of Western military dynamism that we take for granted today." (Victor Davis Hanson, author of Carnage and Culture and The Western Way of War)

“With a soldier’s eye, Jim Lacey recreates the Battle of Marathon in all its brutal simplicity. This compelling and provocative read makes a potent contribution to an enduring debate.” (Barry Strauss, author of The Battle of Salamis and Professor of History, Cornell University)

“A lively and readable account of the battle of Marathon and its significance. Jim Lacey’s experience as a professional soldier gives it an added dimension, especially his ability to see the military situation from both sides.” (Donald Kagan, author of The Peloponnesian War)

Good, Bad, Ugly

Too much good about this, but I can't ignore the bad. The good is the author was a former infantry man (82d AB) and his perspective on Hoplite combat in general and Marathon in particular were spot on. The secret is the basic infantryman doesn't change that much from one era to the next, weapons and tech do, but the grunt doesn't. A lot of Military History is written by lifelong civilians. They do their research but they don't understand the context. The either accept it uncritically or reject it, rather than evaluate it from the perspective of what is actually plausible, possible and likely. The parts dealing with the actual hoplite kit, training, and battle I found myself going back and re-listening too, 3x, and parts 4 or 5x.
The bad and ugly is trying to slap a bunch of lipstick on the Spartans and make them out as the key to Greek resistance of Persia and they weren't. They were small minded, duplicitous, jealous of Athens. By the authors own research, and everybody else's, the Athenians were up to their eyeballs supporting the Ionians in their Rebellion against the Great King. in fact while describing the Athenian hoplite, he maintains the superiority of the Spartans, even though he states the Athenians had been actively campaigning for the previous 20 years all over the Eastern Med, in all kinds of terrain, weather, naval, amphibious and land, while the Spartans seldom campaigned more than a few days march from Sparta, always concerned about the helots revolting--and taking casualties that were irreplacable. The fact that the Athenians at Marathon was an experienced veteran army, victorious in 3 major campaigns and a host of skirmishes and "police" actions, even facing down a Spartan army in one encounter that did not result in a battle. The first half of the book was mostly about Sparta and why they acted the way they did, and why it was up to the Athenians to shoulder the burden of resistance. Maybe I was misinterpreting the author's argument and the Spartans contribution was staying out of the lead up, because they would have inevitably screwed the pooch. I dunno. I will definitely re-listen to the second half of the book, as the description of the training of the Athenians, the events precipitating Marathon, the campaign and the interpretation of the battle made more sense than anything I have read on the subject, but it really is a contrast with the first half.
The narration was engaging, the narrator was comfortable with names, places and equipment, no mispronunciation's or confusion. He was very good, a keeper.