King of Kings, and the Empire of Empires

From early articulations of neocon resolve to confront Iran, there is now a confusion discernible in the Bush administration’s assertions that Iran cannot be allowed to carry on with its nuclear programme. There is now, from card-carrying hawks, a grudging confession that Persian pride renders counterproductive neat military or sanctions-based solutions.

Recent years have seen a revival of interest in Alexander the Great. His sweep across Asia, with that vengeful torching at Persepolis has been retold in volume after engrossing volume. Holland harks back to the beginnings of that confrontation between Persia and Greece (Sparta and Athens).

It would be misleading to imbue too much modern context into this slice of ancient history. This earliest clash of civilisations is by itself a splendid narrative.

And in addition to a recreation of the magnificence of the Persian empire, Holland is focussed on explaining the significance of the wars in the making of the western world. He writes: “There was much more at stake during the course of the Persian attempts to subdue the Greek mainland than the independence of what Xerxes had regarded as a ragbag of terrorist states. Much that made the Greek civilisation distinctive would have been aborted. The legacy inherited by Rome and passed on to modern Europe would have been immeasurably impoverished. Not only would the West have lost its first struggle for independence and survival, but it is unlikely, had the Greeks succumbed to Xerxes’ invasion, that there would have been such an entity as ‘the West’ at all.”

Exaggeration? Perhaps. Reason to skip this book? Not at all.