One of the finest retellings you’ll ever read about one of the most remarkable, historically pivotal battles in history. This is my second reading of this book and it won’t be my last.

2.7⭐
Originally posted August 8, 2020.
Edited for clarity January 23, 2024.
I don't know how accurate Steve Pressfield's vision of ancient Greece and the Battle of Thermopolye is. But it has enough of the feel of accuracy, of verisimilitude, to make his setting and characters believable, if not exactly likeable. Not all online critics agree. One claims that the battle tactics Pressfield uses come from a later period in Greek history (since the story takes place about 2500 years ago, I'm willing to cut him the 70 years slack, in this case). Another says the author's description of war wounds is unrealistic as it doesn't include the effects of gangrene and similar infections. For that I thank Mr. Pressfield, as his battles are quite gory enough.

My issues are with the story telling. I think he does a decent job creating a credible if brutal, society. I just have trouble with his frequent, long winded expositions extolling the supposed virtues of that society (and with the disjointed manner in which he tells his tale). The Greek city state we call Sparta was a militaristic oligarcy of slave holders, who extolled war over all other endeavors. The reason for that was mainly so it could keep its captive population under control. It banned most art, poetry and philosopy as effeminate. Pressfield hides none of that, to his credit, but he tries to excuse it with verbose, almost mystical ramblings about soldierly life and the brotherhood of warriors. He's not the first, the imperialist powers of 18th and 19th century Europe did the same. It just seems odd that a modern American would do it. And it takes away from what otherwise is a not bad adventure story. I doubt I'll read Pressfield's other novels as I simply don't appreciate his style (took a very long time to finish). You might want to look at it simply to see what the fuss is about.

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.

If you read only one macho right-wing war novel in your life -- read this book!

Steven Pressfield has written a masterpiece about the ancient warrior state of Sparta. This is a society that almost any modern person would loathe on sight. It was a military dictatorship where all power belonged to soldiers and no one had any rights. Slaves were routinely murdered as part of military training. Young boys were conditioned from early childhood to brutalize each other to the point of serious injury.

Yet somehow Steven Pressfield brings this strange society to life, and creates Spartan warriors who are not only admirable and powerful but at times almost lovable.

It helps, of course, that the narrator is a slave from another part of Greece. His perspective is gentle and humane, yet truthful about the price of freedom. As he grows up among the Spartans, you can gradually see the human decency behind the rigid discipline. The training scenes are brutal. The battle scenes are electrifying. And there's so much more!