Hi everyone. I'm going to be starting The Will of Zeus by Stringfellow Barr. It's a history of Greece from the Hellenic Culture to the death of Alexander. Someone on here recommended this book so I'm going to give it a shot.

I tried to find a decent write up of it but I guess it's so old there hardly isn't anything left. =D

Here's what's on the back of the book:

The Will of Zeus is a history of Greece that memorably records its words and deeds and finds a haunting resonance in the events of our own critical times (early 60's). Because the author has placed himself imaginatively in each period of Greek history as he narrates it, the great political, military, intellectual, and artistic achievements of Hellas unfold with dramatic suspense. And although he has carefully documented his statements, he has dared to recount the story of a great civilization in a prose that echoes the power and beauty of the poets and statesmen and thinkers whom he calls up as witnesses.

If you'd like to read it with me let me know.

I'm the one who mentioned this book to Camacho, although I haven't read it yet. I forget where I heard about it first, but it came highly recommended and I was able to get a nice hardcover copy from abebooks.com along with Stringfellow Barr's followup, The Mask of Jove. I already have a couple of books going right now, Camacho, but I would be interested in reading this one next.

For what it's worth, here's a customer review from Amazon:

Perfect. I had a feeling it was you who suggested it but I thought this method of finding you out more fun than doing a forum search. =)

I'm going to begin it tonight. I'm a slow reader so you should have more than enough time to catch up.

I also have the Mask of Jove. Knowing myself I probably won't read the two in succession.

This book is amazing so far. It's history written like a novel. I'm tearing through it. One of the best written non-fiction books I've ever read. I doubt you'll catch up Geo. Maybe we can do Jove together one day.

Glad you're enjoying it, Camacho. Unfortunately this Tarnas book is going to keep me busy for awhile. Keep me posted.

The first couple chapters deal almost exclusively with the two most notable epics of Homer, The Odyssey and The Iliad. It compares the two heroes Achilles and Odysseus. Both were god like to the Greeks but where one was merely a god of war the other was cunning and curious - an adventurer and discoverer. Barr expatiates that not only the sword could earn everlasting fame but knowledge. This does a good job opening up the book because he immediately follows it up by explaining how the Achaeans conquered and settled in different parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia minor. How they kept searching for new lands to develop and spread into much like Odysseus searched for new people to communicate with and learn from.

The Achaeans brought their own culture with them but also were assimilated into other cultures. The high culture of the Minoans is one in which they gained a lot from but lost and also the written alphabet of the Phoenicians that they used to help with trade. They were once a northern people and slowly learned how to navigate the seas and live a warm weathered existence growing crops and Olive trees.

The lack of breaks in the book is a treat. The story line keeps headed straight forward without much digressions but it's still on a time-line. There just isn't any grand breaks where one significant point in time is really stressed. Those suck and I see them as where the Author really wants to show what he thinks he knows by stressing a certain point. Barr doesn't do that at all - it's just smooth sailing. Everything is given eloquently as the book review suggests and he isn't overbearing or pedantic - just a great story teller. This book is great. The story seems like it's telling itself. I'm very happy.

What took Herodotus a rather large book to fill, Barr has tried to do in a handful of chapters. The result is what can be expected. Details have been overlooked, some confusion sets in -especially concerning Pisistratus and Solon, and then the ultimate Persian invasion of Greece is over in a flash. I'm grateful I've read Herodotus before reading this book. The only thing this book offers is some insight into the economies of the various Greek city states and a welcome refresher. It really doesn't add much more than that. Herodotus covered it all.

This book is clearly less than a supplement. It's an overview and an introduction. It's for those who wish to know generalities and seminal events in Hellenic history. For that it is a tremendous book.

The book I'm reading, The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas does a heck of a lot of summary as well. You can imagine as it covers the evolution of thought from the Ancient Greeks, through the birth of Christianity, the middle ages, and through the Enlightenment. That's a heck of a lot of ground to cover. Barr at least focuses on the Greek world which has always fascinated me. Can't wait to read Barr's two books. Thanks again for the updates.

I know exactly what you're talking about, Geo. I read Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence and that was supposed to cover 500 years of Western culture. It was a painful read. I thought I was reading a history book but it turned out to be one man's pick of whatever he felt like talking about. He'd skip over interesting figures and spend pages talking about how many lines were to be used in poetry and how the Opera was doing - he never let the Opera go. It would rear its nasty head in every chapter. Man, what a bore.

Well I'm starting to get out of the realm of Herodotus and progressing through 400BC. I really need to check what his sources are now as I've made a mental note to do it but haven't yet. The story is still very good and the pace of the book is rapid so I find myself going back and rereading, trying to incorporate the story to memory. When I see a movie or hear topics in history discussed it's easier to remember but most of Greek history beyond Thermopylae and the burning of the Acropolis is hardly discussed. Figures such as Themistocles, Darius, Xerxes, Leonidas, and the like are easy enough to remember because of our pop culture but the other figures I find really hard to remember.

I don't remember Herodotus going too far beyond the invasion of Greece's mainland so now everything is pretty much new to me in the book. It's difficult keeping track of all the names and events. I find when I go back through the book to try and remember a particular even I come across a passage or a name that isn't familiar as if I hadn't read it before. This is pretty frustrating for me as I read non-fiction to learn and not to be entertained.

Right now I'm delving into the league of Delos and Athens rise to power and Sparta's decline. The more I read about Sparta the more I'm disappointed in their lasting fame. They don't seem like they did too much to promote a free society or to keep Greece as a whole safe. They couldn't even hold the Peloponnese from their own neighbors. They constantly withdrew attacks and support and are now hostile to Athens. They sought Athens help after an earthquake caused a Helot uprising and then sent the contingent from Athens back because they were afraid that they might help the Helots instead of helping Sparta. This of course was taken as a huge insult.

Alright I gotta get back to work. More later.

That sounds like a lot of new territory to me. I can't wait to read it.

It's clear what side Barr is taking in the debate whether Athens or Sparta was the most beneficial for Greece. He acknowledges that some of Athens' use of the tributes they received from various city states from around the Aegean helped to quell pirates and also to help secure markets through hostilities directed at the Phoenicians, a Persian economic competitor. Athens also began to consolidate power by moving the League of Delos from Delos to Athens and discontinuing summit meetings. They used the money received as tribute not wholly for protecting Greece but also for Athenian public projects including temple building. Athens now had not only money and military tributes but the power which it purchased, they controlled the Greek navy, a sea power comparable to Sparta's power on land.

It confuses me how Sparta is the supreme land power in Greece but they always seem to lose most of their recorded major battles or make gross strategic blunders. Nonetheless, allied under the Peloponnesian league they managed to do some serious damage occupying Attica and forcing Athen's rural population to seek refuge in the now walled up city and main port of Piraeus. It's amazing how Athens was not able to fend them off but I imagine it was because of Sparta being Sparta in every Greek mind - they attracted allies easily whereas other Greeks would be hesitant to help a now hated Athens. Anyway, it looks like Sparta sucks at siege warfare so Athens appears safe. That is until the Plagues strike. Oh well.

Athens really seemed to be making enemies by doubling the tribute now demanded of those in the League of Delos. Countries such as Nexos and Samos that wanted to throw the Athenian yoke in the Aegean were wiped out and in their place Athenian colonizers were sent as land owners. The previous land owners were forced to work the land to support their new Athenian masters or were killed. Athens compromises herself more by making enemies of Corinth and sending ships to Italy to help in a civil war.

Pericles dies about this time. Plague is what Barr says, I'm sure he read it somewhere else. I'm guessing most of the facts are now coming from Thucydides history. I haven't a book by him so I'll make it a point to get one and read it following this book.

Athens or Sparta. One seeks to dominate Greece in order to secure herself and her way of life which happens to put more power in the hands of the majority by subjecting every other Greek state and robbing them of their sovereignty VS. that of Sparta which wants to limit the power of each one of her neighbors, thereby securing her safety, and giving "freedom" back to each sovereign city state. This of course would mean oligarchical rule and power in the hands of the aristocracy or the few 'best-men'.

It appears we have Democrat Vs. Republican. Hehehe. Well, go Dems!

The Agony of Hellas was a sad chapter in the history of Greece. In this chapter which follows Athens meteoric rise to Empirical power and near hegemony, she falls.

Barr mentions hybris or hubris as we're accustomed to calling it now. I can't help but think of the King of Kings, Xerxes. He had a force of over 360,000 land warriors and a large naval fleet which fought against a comparatively puny amount from all of Attica, Euboea, various other city states including outlying allied islands, and of course the Peloponnese that included Sparta. Xerxes as we all know was defeated.

Athens had a strong land force, an unrivaled navy, and gambling on a conquest in Sicily - was annihilated.

After that it was pretty much down hill. As soon as Alcibiades was sent home to be tried and probably killed, Athens was lost. Before that, even. As soon as she sought to enlarge her empire after just having secured a tenuous peace with Sparta, having lost major tribute nations and the silver mines at Amphipolis, Athens decides to send nearly her entire navy on a frivolous quest that no ships and few men returned from. Disastrous for Athens. Reckless. It practically sealed their doom.

In the face of having lost the rest of her navy in the Hellespont to Sparta's navy, something that was probably considered impossible by Athenians at the time, Athens becomes besieged by Sparta on land. A slow starvation ensues as Euboea no longer supplies the polis with food and Spartans offer free passage to any Athenians inside the city; a strategy designed to increase the demand for food.

Athens is lost. Reading the summary of events Barr provides it's a wonder Athens ever existed in the first place. Something was obviously lost shortly after Themistocles left. A purpose was misplaced and zeal for securing Athens gave way to greed and gambles much like someone attempting to provide for their retirement by putting their life savings on a craps table. Athens was on her way to security and prosperity following the Peace of Nicias. Instead, she chose to attempt the subjugation of more city states to increase the tributes she received. That's what got her in a war with Sparta in the first place.

I don't know if there was a way around not being a tyrant to other Greek nations. Pericles even acknowledged that in a speech he made. Athens appeared to have very few friends. And rather protect and profligate her way of life and thinking - she forced it on others. If they refused they were killed or forced to work their own land under their new Athenian masters.

This got me of course thinking about my nation. What have we done that mirrors the folly of Athens with regards to imperialism? Anyone who has read Chomsky knows our meddling in Central and South America and anyone that can can read a newspaper knows about Iraq. How we have deposed governments and set up puppet regimes that were loyal to our nation and kept their own people down is hazy for most Americans - esoteric, mysterious, the room at the back where that crazy guy lives.. what's his name? Who cares please don't mention him again it interferes with my happiness. But do we resemble Athens or Sparta more in that department?

Our deeds probably reflect Sparta's policy towards imperialism more so than Athens'. Where Athens would send in her own people to inherit the newly acquired land and subject or kill its people, Sparta would set up a tyrant or tyrants friendly to Sparta and then back it with military force. So Sparta is more like what the United States does, in my opinion.

Meddling in the affairs of other nations... it's difficult to know what the outcomes would be. All I know is that history doesn't tend to look too negatively on cruel actions that are made with the best intentions and produce virtuous results (don't EVEN think Iraq fits this - don't you dare! ).

This book makes me think about men and government. Who should be in charge of making rules and how does a country achieve prosperity and keep it? It seems that most figures in the book at one time or another sell their own soil down the river and that's difficult to read. I lose a little hope in humanity when I read something like that. Then I think if each and every member of that society had a say in whether or not that individual person should be allowed to sell their country out, it probably wouldn't happen. I'm not saying that's 'right' or not, which is to say that I don't think that other people should be in charge of another person's freewill, all I'm saying is that it probably wouldn't be allowed to happen.

That's why I'm happy I live in America, where the illusion of voting and democracy is so appealing to everyone. The only problem is our distrust of ourselves and our neighbors. The one thing that would save us might be our individual greed. Our one vote would protect our one interest and someone else's one vote would protect theirs. A strong education and unity in a higher purpose might just fill in the gaps to make mass voting on different issues, rather than people, work. I don't think we should give up on the idea of democracy or consider the job done. I feel we have a long way to go to ensure the power is taken away from the aristocracy and given to our nation as a whole. Our forefathers wouldn't have wanted it that way but they put us on the right path to achieve that goal and I believe that it can be done.

This book has taught me that there will always be someone eager to take power away from the majority and that alliances between the few and powerful are greatly effective at stealing government away from the people. I've also learned that in spite of all this, it only takes a single man (albeit in an advantageous position) to wrest that power away and give it back to the people. I've also learned that sometimes it takes a spanking to learn a lesson. The only problem is that when a country gets spanked people die... a lot of people die.

It really is the responsibility of each individual person to put forth an effort everyday to realize a goal of true democracy and that's something I have failed to do and so has most every one else I come into contact with. Who has time? With all our attention focused on our every day affairs we get tunnel vision and lose sight of our responsibility to ourselves and our beautiful nation. If we all just took a couple minutes out of everyday to do something for our country that makes a small dent - it would snowball into progress and the realization of a true democracy, not mere illusion.

Camacho, this is a great essay you've written and I thank you for taking the time to post it. I think it illustrates why it's important to read history. We don't realize what a great nation this is, but it doesn't come free. Our apathy will destroy us if we don't wake up. Thanks again for your post.