A review of
Gates of Fire
By
Steven Pressfield

This is a novel set around the events of the battle of Thermopylae in Ancient Greece, the same battle that inspired the well-known 300 Graphic novel and film. A tale that still captures the imagination of people thousands of years after the events took place. We all know the story; the 300 brave Spartans who stood against the hordes of Persia, hugely outnumbered and yet, still fought and died bravely to the last man, taking a massive toll on the Persian army.
So going into this book I knew how it was going to end, but what I didn’t expect is just how immersed I would become in the lives of the book’s characters. This book gives us a very well researched glimpse into Spartan life and Ancient Greek culture through the eyes of its main protagonist Xeones. Xeones is not a Spartan himself, but through fate he ends up living amongst them. Unable to become a full Spartan warrior, but still a free man he instead becomes the battle squire for the Spartan commander Dienekes. The story flashes forwards and backwards in time, from his childhood, through parts of his life in Spartan Greece, and of course, to the events surrounding the final battle itself. We see his life, learn how they thought, get a glimpse at the Spartan philosophy and mind-set. We meet his family and friends, his comrades in arms. There were so many amazing characters in this book, from his friend Alexandros, to his master Dienekes, to his rivals, each and every one takes an emotional toll by the end of the novel.
One point I found quite jarring at first, but by the end, I found quite fantastic was Pressfield’s use of Ancient Greek words and phrases throughout the novel. I actually learnt quite a lot of the language by the end, so when it was used I really understood the dialogue on a deeper level. This element shows an incredible level of research from the author and brought a real sense of authenticity.
In short this book was fantastic, there are some heavy emotions involved in the read, but is definitely a must read. There is such bravery and valour, and yet, shows the deep philosophical undercurrent of Ancient Greece and the Spartan culture. By the end I felt I truly understood the characters sacrifice.

If you enjoy ancient Greece, or are a fan of any form of military fiction I can recommend… Hell, everyone should just go and read this book. It’s amazing. Do it, but prepare yourself, it hits hard.

Thanks for reading.
Lee C. Conley

A few years ago I read and loved Pressfield's The Afghan Campaign, which is apparently one of his minor works, so I expected to be blown away by this one. Unlike most readers, though, while I think it's competently written, I was never able to enjoy it.

Gates of Fire is primarily about the battle at Thermopylae, as told through the eyes of Xeones, a young squire. Much of the book deals with Xeones's life, Spartan military training, and the lead-up to the famous battle, but the battle itself definitely gets its share of attention.

First, the good stuff. Gates of Fire is a decently written book, without fluff, and at his best Pressfield deals with intensely emotional moments in a very effective understated way. Although this book was apparently part of the inspiration for that ridiculous movie, 300, it's not stupid or over-the-top. Pressfield deals with war in such a way that you can see how people come to diametrically opposed conclusions about it--why some people think it's glorious and want to be part of it, and why others think it's hell. And while I wasn't a stranger to these historical events before reading the book, I still learned some things from it (did you know the Spartans had allies at Thermopylae? Me neither).

And now, the problems:

1) It's very heavy on the history, at the expense of the fiction. Pressfield gives us info-dumps about Spartan culture, for instance, rather than weaving it into the story. And there's also long narrative stretches about military strategy and training and so on. If you're like me--you like historical fiction, but don't read history books for fun--it can be rough going. Especially since much of it is quite densely written, with lots of names and Greek terms thrown at the reader without any context.

2) Relatedly, the book doesn't really have a main character, or anyone I was able to connect to. Xeones is the narrator, but not really the protagonist (unlike the narrator in The Afghan Campaign); he tends to disappear into the background and narrate in the third person, and sometimes it's not even clear if he's present or not. And while there are some decent secondary characters, like Dienekes and Alexandros, none of them are the protagonist either. I'm sure this is intentional: it's a book about a group, not about an individual, and the Spartans fought as a unit; focusing on individual heroics might seem to cheapen that. But when the main character is "the Spartans" and there's less focus on individual character development, again, it makes the book feel more like history than fiction. As is, everybody died (including Xeones) and I didn't give a flip, which is kind of lame. I don't expect or want to be crushed by every major character death in a book that I read, which would be exhausting, but this kind of drama ought to have summoned a least a little emotion.

3) Finally, the book is told in a circuitous way; I found the jumping back and forth in time a bit distracting, but more off-putting was the way Xeones would forecast an event or subplot before narrating it in detail later. Already knowing how Thermopylae turned out, I was hoping for some suspense in the details, but there too Pressfield tells us the end before getting started on the story.

So in the end, while I wouldn't call this an objectively bad book, I didn't find it particularly compelling or rewarding, and was glad to be done with it. Obviously, tons of people love it, and if you are a military history buff you should definitely give it a try. And it's definitely more male-oriented, so if you're a guy you probably shouldn't let my review turn you off. But it may be disappointing to the casual reader, especially the casual female reader. It certainly was to me.

Kada znas kako se bitka zavrsava, ali ti likovi toliko prirastu za srce, da se nadas nekom preokretu u zelji da prezive

The qualities of a good battle squire are simple enough. He must be dumb as a mule, numb as a post and obedient as an imbecile. In these qualifications, Xeones of Astakos, I declare your credentials impeccable.

This is how Xeones, one of the main characters of the book, is described at some time in the story. Ironically the entire book revolves around this helot character who ends up being an eye witness of the battle of Thermopylae. The book itself tries to be an historical reference intercalated with a fictional plot. The use of Greek words in their Anglicized form makes the atmosphere of the book even more credible but sometimes this could confuse the reader. As an example take “katalepsis “ who according to the author means: ‘possession, meaning that derangement of the senses that comes when terror or anger usurps dominion of the mind’. The problem was that I knew the word to mean grasp or comprehension but who knows may be it is a homonym.

The story is complex and engaging, the characters credibly portrayed and the environment vividly described. But the dialogs are the ones which make the book entertaining. The combined extrospection and introspection of each character which is exteriorized through words tries to be deep and profound but at the same time laconic as the Spartans usually like it:

- Answer this, Alexandros. When our countrymen triumph in battle, what is it that defeats the foe?
- Our steel and our skill.
- These, yes but something more. It is that …
- Fear, their own fear defeats our enemies
- Now answer. What is the source of fear?
(no response)
-Fear arises from this: the flesh. This is the factory of fear.

At the same time the book exposes the difference between the cultures of some ancient Greek city-states. For example the oligarchic Sparta is compared with the democratic Athena so that the Spartan way of leaving is better contoured. At some time one can even perceive a cult of personality created around one of their original law makers Lycurgus:

We have embraced the laws of Lykurgus, and they are stern laws. They have schooled us to scorn the life of leisure, which this rich land of ours would bestow upon us if we wished, and instead to enrol ourselves in the academy of discipline and sacrifice.

And which is more they see themselves different from the others because they think they found a way to overcome some of the flows of the human being usually by having 3 main principles: peer equality, military discipline and austerity. In their opinion the human character is by default corrupt:

Man is weak, greedy, craven, lustful, prey to every species of vice and depravity. He will lie, steal, cheat, murder, melt down the very statues of the gods and coin their gold as money for whores. This is man. This is his nature, as all the poets attest.

Because their society is built on some form of military philosophy most of the males are trained, early in their lives, to be soldiers through a program called agoge. They realize that in order to have the best army the need some principles to breed one. So they start at the roots, the babies.

After birth the babies are thoroughly scrutinized and if they don’t fit the pattern they are left to die. This cruel way of filtering can be easily viewed as an early form of eugenics and is mostly missing from the book. (at least don’t remember it )

But to have strong offspring in the first place they believe they need strong mothers. In order to achieve this they tolerate a wider independence level for females than it’s usually seen in the other Greek poleis( city-states). Spartan women are also encouraged to walk through the city or do gymnastics:

They were dams, these ladies, wives and mothers whose primary calling was to produce boys who would grow to be warriors and heroes, defenders of the city. Spartan women were brood mares, the pampered damsels of other cities might scoff, but if they were mares, they were racers, Olympic champions. The athletic glow and vigour which the gynaikagoge, the women’s training discipline, produced in them was powerful stuff and they knew it.

Religion is an absolutely important aspect of their society and to be somehow agnostic or even an atheist is rarely seen. This is superbly presented at some time in the book :

Dekton was the first person I had ever met, man or boy, who had absolutely no fear of the gods. He didn’t hate them as some do, or mock their antics as I had heard the impious freethinkers did in Athens and Corinth. Dekton didn’t grant their existence at all. There were no gods, it was as simple as that. This struck me with a kind of awe. I kept watch, waiting for him to be felled by some hideous blow of heaven.

In the end the book turned out to be an incredible ride through the first part of the second Persian invasion of Greece. Because of the historical references and the emotion behind the brother-in-arms phenomenon it can’t be easily forgotten. Ironically the “few stand against many “ concept reflected at Thermopylae blends perfectly with their oligarchical (Spartan) system, where oligarchy means: power in the hands of the few. But we are lead to believe that this few really deserve it

A king does not abide within his tent while his men bleed and die upon the field. A king does not dine while his men go hungry, nor sleep when they stand at watch upon the wall. A king does not command his men’s loyalty through fear nor purchase it with gold; he earns their love by the sweat of his own back and the pains he endures for their sake. That which comprises the harshest burden, a king lifts first and sets down last. A king does not require service of those he leads but provides it to them. He serves them, not they him.

skończyłam ( ale jakim kosztem)

Gates of Fire exists to prove that conservative art can be good. At least if you’re a dude.

Conservative

‘Shall I tell you where I find this strength, friends? In the eyes of our sons in scarlet before us, yes. And in the countenances of their comrades who will follow in battles to come. But more than that, my heart finds courage from these, our women, who watch in tearless silence as we go.'

Gates of Fire is conservative in that it is nostalgic for a time and place that never existed.

You can browse various forums as to the book's historical inaccuracies as to training, tactics, grand strategy, or how much fun it really was to be a helot.

Yet what really stands out to me is how flamboyantly heterosexual these Spartans are. Pressfield's characters make universally derogatory references to homosexuality while portraying Spartan married life as extremely conventional. How Ancient Greeks viewed sexuality is complicated, nonetheless I can confidently state Pressfield creates a world that bears no relation to history.

There isn’t an obvious narrative reason for Pressfield to do this, at least not one that is divorced from a conservative worldview. This is a worldview that positively portrays women... ...within defined gender roles. Pressfield gives prominence to Dienekes’ wife Agathe and women are “important” in Pressfield’s society. Women run an underground information system (which Pressfield allows to determine a major plot point) and they dutifully mourn their lost husbands and sons in a politically influential way. Most importantly to their role, the overarching theme links the concept of womanly love to the duty of the male warriors.

Basically, Gates of Fire is a conservative fantasy where discipline derives from having a (very) heterosexual family unit. It would be impossible for Pressfield to develop the plot and themes of Gates of Fire in a historically accurate Spartan society, where, according to Rahe:

The social and economic arrangements at Sparta seem to have been aimed at suppressing the private element in human life, at making the adult male Spartiate an almost entirely public being by eliminating to the greatest degree possible the last refuge of privacy—the family.

To restate: Pressfield is not working within actual limitations of a women’s place in Spartan society or a lack of documentation on the issue generally. Gates of Fire is the imposition of a conservative worldview on a time and place.

Art

His Majesty, responding through Orontes, captain of the Immortals, asserted to the contrary that this was precisely the tale he wished most to hear. His Majesty was, He declared, already possessed of abundant intelligence of the intriguings of the great; what He desired most to hear was this, ‘the infantryman’s tale’.

You can fairly write this book off. It is grossly inaccurate. Even after putting that inaccuracy aside it is reasonable to take issue with its goal of bringing imaginary 1950s values to 490BC. These values tend to be centred around a husband, wife, and 2.4 kids.

However, Gates of Fire is an amazing read, at least from a boy scout/US Marine Corps perspective. The characters are recognisable caricatures that still elevate themselves above their distinguishing features. The heroes of the book are flawed individuals rather than the perfect characters, but even the stereotypical golden boy has outstanding moments. The pacing is exceptional (helped by Pressfield imagining a few battles in between). There are no real antagonists and the portrayals of the named “enemies” tend to be sympathetic, creating a layer of complexity. It’s bros being bros in the face of death. The speeches and battles do have the epic quality worthy of how Thermopylae as remembered. Discipline in the face of the enemy is emphasised over and over again with inspiring examples, which probably explains why it is taught in US military schools.

Accepting certain limitations, I believe it is possible to appreciate a good story that eulogises values that I disagree with. An easy way to see the difference between good and bad writing from a conservative viewpoint is to read The Profession by the same author. That latter book did not develop female characters, relied on easy wish fulfilment and went too broad with perspective.

Dienekes’ courage was different. His was the virtue of a man, a fallible mortal, who brought valour forth out of the understanding of his heart, by the force of some inner integrity which was unknown to Polynikes.

It is great conservative art.

Not a spoiler: They all die in the end. As you already know, thanks to history or pop culture (“300”). 
 
This is the historically accurate version of the Battle of Thermopylae, i.e. not 300 Spartans with bare abs against two million degenerate Persians. But rather a few thousand Greeks led by 300 Spartan knights – with armor – against some hundred thousand Persian soldiers.
 
The battle is recounted by Xeones, a lone survivor and Spartan squire, to the Persian emperor Xerxes. Xeones’ narrative spans many years and provides the backstory of the characters fighting the Battle of Thermopylae, as well as insights into the Spartan way of life.
 
Gates of Fires is rich in historical detail. The writing style is somewhat stilted, combined with profane soliders’ banter. But then, that is soldiers of all eras for you (the author is a former Marine). Taken together this works quite well as an immersive reading experience.
 
Writing a gripping account of a several-days-long battle already known to the reader takes skill. Pressfield manages this admirably well. The descriptions of the battles are visceral.
 
This is also a book about what people fight for and what they are willing to die for, about fear and how to overcome it, and good leadership. It is not surprising that this is a favorite book for many soldiers. Gates of Fire contains some powerful messages regarding these topics, and is therefore not as bleak as you might think.
 
"‘Here is what you do, friends. Forget country. Forget king. Forget wife and children and freedom. Forget every concept, however noble, that you imagine you fight for here today. Act for this alone: for the man who stands at your shoulder. He is everything, and everything is contained within him. That’s all I know. That’s all I can tell you.’"
 
"‘The opposite of fear,’ Dienekes said, ‘is love."

4,5* είχα ακούσει τρομερές κριτικές γιαυτό το βιβλίο και δεν μπορούσα να επικεντρωσω τι ήταν αυτό που είχε ενθουσιάσει τόσο πολύ κόσμο.... Δεν είναι οι περιγραφές της μάχης... Είναι όλο το πακέτο... Σε κάποια σημεία πιάνεις μυρωδιές άσχημες από πτώματα.. Δεν σου χαρίζεται αυτό το βιβλίο... Το ζεις μέσα στην φρίκη και το παράλογο του πολέμου... Δεν είναι ιστορικό είναι η ψυχολογία του θανάτου που έρχεται με φόντο ένα Λαμπρό δείγμα ανδρείας από την αρχαία ιστορία μας...δύσκολο βιβλίο... Επιλεγετε το μόνο συνειδητά

Πάρα πολύ ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο,από αυτά που δεν σε αφήνουν να το αφήσεις.Ειλικρινά,αισθάνεσαι πως είσαι μέσα στη μάχη και παρακολουθείς τα τεκτενόμενα από πρώτο χέρι!

I originally gave this five stars but looking back the constant switching of time and place got irritating near the end. It was fine at first, but when you're in the middle of the gripping titular battle the last thing you want is to zoom away to some other point in time. This is probably the most I've ever learned about the realities and intricacies of war from a single book. If you want a good way to find out exactly why the Spartans are still revered as amazing soldiers today read this book. That said, if this was primarily focused on just the battle the book took its name from I'd probably get really bored. Instead Pressfield tells a moving story of a man whose life is destroyed early in his childhood by a rival city-state and how he comes to fight in Thermopylae.

You'd think that a book like this would be constant aggro manly chest-thumping and stuff like that, and there is a good deal of that kind of thing, but what surprised me is how touching the book can be. It's really focused more on how intensely the bonds can be between human beings in stressful times and how far they go for each other. I've never been in any kind of military situation but this book helped me see how deep the camaraderie and compassion can go between soldiers. What these dudes did over the course of those days was one of the most selfless acts in history, even if they did believe in an afterlife where they would be rewarded for such acts.

This was a really great book and it just barely missed the five star mark in my humble opinion. I just look back and remember that annoying jerkiness in the narrative but everything else was fantastic. The titular battle is seriously awe-inspiring and just...epic. I don't mean that in the "it was fucking epic, man" hyperbolic sense but in the sense that it seems like something you'd read in The Odyssey. It's just a really unbelievable story and Pressfield makes it that much more vivid by painting human faces on the people involved.

I wish I knew with more certainty which parts of this were established facts, which were speculation and which were completely made up; with this knowledge my enjoyment would have been greatly enhanced. I do enjoy historical fiction, provided it's more history than fiction. Not knowing is distractingly aggravating.

I'm going to have to read some non-fiction on this subject else this is really going to bug me.

Written with passion, and with a clear intention to present the experience of soldiers, whenever they lived. The result isn't anachronism but a reality lent to ancient Greece, along with a timelessness.

The highs and lows of the soldier's life are here. I say lows because those Spartans were mad as a cut snake, in my eyes. Highs: you know of the self-sacrifice at Thermopylae.