Political and military history used to be the main staple of ancient Greek history. This review includes a number of volumes devoted to the subject. Matteo Zaccarini's book focuses on Cimon and the period between 478 and 450 bce.Footnote ¹ Sandwiched between Herodotus’ Persian Wars and Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, the Pentekontaetia (478–431) is the most problematic period of classical Greek history, primarily because of the lack of a continuous narrative and our reliance on much later and fragmentary sources. Zaccarini has divided his work into two sections: the first studies the development of narrative traditions concerning Cimon and his age, from the fifth century to the Second Sophistic, and presents a context for interpreting the shaping of the information provided in these traditions. This is undoubtedly the most profitable part of the work, and a good model that others could imitate. The second part attempts to present a historical reconstruction of the period 478–450 on the basis of the conclusions of the first part. Many of Zaccarini's arguments are, in my view, correct: he shows the need to emancipate our narratives from models based on competition between aristocratic/popular or pro- and anti-Spartan leaders and programmes; he argues that the late 460s–450s is the crucial period of change in the balance of internal and external forces; and he minimizes the actual significance of Cimon's role. These sensible conclusions could have been strengthened by engaging with the rethinking of the nature of early Athenian imperialism by scholars such as Lisa Kallet and John Davies. But the volume is still a worthy contribution towards reassessing this crucial period.

As with the Pentekontaetia, the history of the archaic sacred wars concerning Delphi and the great conflict between the Phocians and the Thessalians is based on fragmentary and usually much later sources. Elena Franchi's book explores these issues through the concepts of intentional history and memory culture, which have had a deep impact on recent German scholarship. Franchi situates these narratives within the process of Phocian ethnos-building and its intentional history in remembering the past and constructing identities.Footnote ² She explores how the fourth-century context of the Third Sacred War created new ways of employing the traditions concerning the First Sacred War, both from the enemies of the Phocians to denigrate them and from the Phocians themselves in the aftermath of their defeat. It is also in this context that the traditions concerning the conflict between the Thessalians and Phocians were reinterpreted. The Phocian–Thessalian conflict has been seen as either a ritual conflict over borders or a war of national annihilation; Franchi argues that the actual war was the result of the Thessalian attempt to subjugate the Phocians, and that it was only from the fourth century onwards that the memory of these conflicts was reshaped to take the form of the wonderful stories of Phocian desperation and victory that we find in Pausanias and Plutarch. Within this wider argument, Franchi also discusses the relationship between Phocian material culture and identity, as well as the role of sanctuaries such as Hyampolis and Abai. This is a rich volume that will be of interest to various groups of ancient historians.

The next volume under review is the second edition of Lukas Thommen's book on Sparta, originally published in 2002.Footnote ³ The work offers an overall introduction to the history of Sparta, from the Dark Ages to the Imperial period, and combines narrative history with synchronic discussions of Spartan politics, society, economy, and culture. The book's structure is rather peculiar, as the progression of narrative chapters is interspersed with synchronic discussion; this has the advantage of stressing that most of our evidence for Spartan politics and society comes in particular temporal concentrations. Given the nature of our knowledge about Sparta, which is always from an outsider's point of view and often much later in time and anachronistic, Spartan history is particularly liable to factoids. Thommen does a particularly good job of showing to the reader what is really attested by the sources and what can be extrapolated by the scholars. The long-term perspective can be particularly useful when discussion of Spartan institutions is not restricted to the classical period, as with most other general accounts, but takes into account the evidence from Hellenistic Sparta, where relevant. However, it is rather a pity that Thommen's discussion of late Hellenistic and Roman Sparta is rather slim, and does not pay justice to the rich material culture of the period. Finally, it would have been particularly profitable had the second edition paid more attention to a number of issues that have been strongly debated over the last fifteen years, such as the nature of helotage, or the extent to which Sparta was a peculiar Greek polis.

Joseph Roisman's new book concerns the art of command in classical Greece.Footnote ⁴ The book is structured around the careers of eight Greek commanders: two Spartans (Leonidas, Lysander), three Athenians (Themistocles, Pericles, Demosthenes), one Syracusan (Dionysius I), and two Thebans (Epaminondas, Pelopidas). The selection manages successfully to illustrate the various features of command that proved significant in Greek history: the development of battle tactics and the employment of different kinds of forces; naval warfare; ploys and stratagems; strategy; morale boosting; and the development of military technology. The book also doubles as a useful overview of the careers of these eight individuals. Roisman correctly stresses the significance of the commanders’ character: but, given the nature of our sources, our ability to comprehend the character and motivation of ancient commanders is impossible without engaging with the social and cultural history of Greek warfare. Scholars like van Wees and Lendon have raised the significance of issues such as the nature of the relationship between commanders and soldiers, the role of individual and collective honour, the multiple aims of warfare, and the nature of Greek interstate relationships. It is a pity that Roisman's book does not engage with these issues as much as it could; but it provides a useful basis on which others can build.

The next volume, edited by Claudia Antonetti and Paolo Biagi, uses the campaigns of Alexander as a springboard to examine the relationship between the Greek world and India and Central Asia.Footnote ⁵ The eleven essays included range widely, but there are a number of common themes. A first theme concerns the geopolitics of Alexander's conquests in India and Central Asia. A number of chapters re-examine the topography and conquests of Alexander in Central Asia and India (Rapin), as well as the famous return trip of Nearchus alongside the Persian Sea (Biagi, Bucciantini). A second theme examines the interrelationship between the histories of Alexander, Greek discourses of alterity, and the creation of ethnographic and geographic knowledge with regard to the geography of the Indian Caucasus (Prontera), the Indica of Megasthenes (Zambrini), and Indian ethnography in the Alexander historians (Beggiora). A third theme concerns intercultural relations, from Alexander's Iranian policies (Olbrycht) and Greek and Iranian elements in Seleucid royal iconography (Messina), to the impact of Greek culture in Babylonia (Corò) and in the Scythian communities of the eastern steppe (Crescioli). Finally, of particular interest is the chapter by Gorshenina on the reception of Alexander by the Russian authorities in their expansion in Central Asia. The quality of individual chapters is overall high, but most contributions would have benefited significantly from a stronger engagement with recent work on ancient ethnography and intercultural interactions in the ancient world.

While prehistoric archaeology became explicitly theoretical under the impact of processual and post-processual approaches in the post-war period, classical archaeology has resisted explicit discussions of theory for much longer. The impact of explicit theory-building was initially felt in Iron Age archaeology, and has since significantly affected the practising of Roman archaeology. The aim of Lisa Nevett's edited volume is to explore the utility of theoretical approaches to the archaeology of ancient Greece from the archaic to the Hellenistic periods, and to initiate debate and dialogue.Footnote ⁶ The volume includes a brief editorial introduction, thirteen chapters, and two short responses (Foxhall, Archibald). The contributions range widely, in terms of the topics they deal with, what they understand as theoretical approaches, and how successfully they apply their theoretical approaches to the archaeological material. A first theme concerns the historiography of theoretical approaches to classical archaeology (Stone, Ault). A second major concern is the implications of self-reflexivity about the vocabulary and concepts that archaeologists employ. One chapter shows how interpretations of Attic vases have focused either on the intentionality of the artist or on the reception by the audience, and explores the implications of those approaches for scholarly interpretation (Lynch). A number of chapters investigate the implications of the conceptions of ethnicity and identity that archaeologists employ to interpret complex monuments and material assemblages, such as the Alexander sarcophagus (Martin), Greek religious iconography in the Near East (Çakmak), and funerary assemblages in Sicily (Hofmann and Attula) and Vergina (Salminen). Other chapters focus on spatial perspectives, applied to religious buildings (Paga) and religious landscapes and processions (Scott, Agelidis). A final major theme concerns the application of archaeologists’ theories to particular bodies of evidence: especially stimulating are the application of the chaîne opératoire concept to Attic Geometric pottery (Smyrnaios) and the use of material entanglement to explore the origins and implications of alphabetic writing in archaic Greece (Whitley).

I shall finish this review with two books devoted to Greek historiography. Seth Jaffe's monograph is an exploration of Thucydides’ account of the origin of wars, which straddles the division between ancient history, literary studies, and political theory.Footnote ⁷ Jaffe explores a perennial problem in Thucydidean studies: how to square Thucydides’ trans-historical claims about human nature with the impressive attention to minute details of diplomatic and military engagements. The work focuses on the first book of Thucydides, arguing that it forms an organic unity despite the fact that book divisions did not exist in Thucydides’ original text; furthermore, it argues that this book creates the theoretical framework through which Thucydides invites his readers to interpret the rest of his narrative account. At the centre of this attention is the nexus between necessity and advantage provided by the character of individuals and communities. Communities perceive their own advantage, but their character shapes them to conceive it in particular and distinctive ways; necessity is the path taken once character and circumstance have forced individuals and communities to conceive their options in restricted ways. The character of communities allows us not only to situate the character and role of individuals but also to explore how communities are able or fail to take uncharacteristic action when required by necessity or circumstance. By constructing this general framework linking the general with the particular, Thucydides tries to shape what frameworks his readers will employ in order to interpret the mass of events. This is a rich book, which will be highly useful not only for literary scholars and political theorists but also for historians aiming to use Thucydides for constructing the modern narratives of the Peloponnesian War that we so badly need.

As Momigliano stressed, ancient historiography was divided between the history of the recent past (Zeitgeschichte) and the history of the distant past. Most of ancient historiography belonged to the former category, even if such works might include briefer narratives of the distant past. Accordingly, the study of ancient historiography is largely geared towards the methods and approaches of historians in the former group, such as Thucydides and Polybius. Diodorus belongs to the second, and has accordingly fared badly when judged by the principles of the first. In the volume under review, Michael Rathmann enhances attempts over the last twenty-first years to offer alternative frameworks for understanding Diodorus.Footnote ⁸ Rathmann offers an exhaustive discussion of Diodorus’ life, the title of his work (Bibliotheke), and the methods employed by Diodorus in order to construct his narrative. The purpose of this exhaustive discussion is to reconstruct how Diodorus saw himself as a historian, what audience he sought to address, and what purpose he thought his work served. Rathmann stresses Diodorus’ provincial origins and middle-class status as creating limits for his ability to work as historian. He sees Diodorus as aiming to serve his readers by offering them a selection of what was available in the huge output of ancient historiography, while reinterpreting his selected material in order to provide exempla for the moral education of the readers. I find these arguments valid and useful; but there is still much that needs to be done if we are ever to understand the aims and methods of those ancient historians who did not write Zeitgeschichte. A careful comparison with the aims and methods of the authors who compiled the corpus of historical works in the Bible would have much to offer the study of Diodorus in this respect.