Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity

John Lendon, a Yale Ph.D. now teaching at the University of Virginia, is the author of a well-received but challenging 1997 book, Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. His new book, Soldiers and Ghosts, is even more provocative—deliberately so, challenging many accepted ideas about Greek and Roman warfare. Although Lendon never tells us exactly what culture means, he seems to have in mind a congeries of valued Greek and Roman male traits, sometimes contradictory, that include aggressive courage, self-discipline, a sense of decline from a greater past, and a tendency to look to that past for inspiration. For the Greeks, the Iliad defined the proper conduct of war; for the Romans, Greek practice and their own heroic past, neither of which were always well understood, provided the models. Soldiers and Ghosts, with its analysis of military combat in cultural terms, has much to recommend it. It is a lively and well-written book that is based on close readings of the classical sources and critical reviews of the secondary literature. It also offers a fine, if unwieldy, guide to the recent literature on classical warfare. Lacking a straightforward bibliography, the book tucks its information away in endnotes keyed to the text and an equally substantial set of bibliographic notes that further elaborate key points. There is also a chronology and glossary. Each of the two major sections has its own introduction and conclusion, first “The Greeks” in seven chapters (pp. 15–161), then “The Romans” in six (pp. 163–315). The narrative proper begins with a chapter on warfare as depicted in the Iliad, then proceeds to a history of land warfare in classical antiquity from the semi-mythical Battle of the Champions between Argos and Sparta (c. 550 BCE) to the Gothic victory over Rome at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 CE. Each chapter centers on a specific battle that illustrates a key theme. Cultural approaches work better for some battles than others, and the seeming equation of tactics and strategy with trickery seems odd, to say the least (see especially pp. 303–11). Lendon considers Greek individual competitiveness and the tension between Roman virtus (aggressive courage) and disciplina (obedience) to be the touchstone of classical warfare. Although he can find numerous examples of Greek hoplites competing for glory, his elaborate cultural explanation for hoplite warfare seems more a justification or rationalization for a style of fighting that, in material terms, demanded little skill or training— that is, it opened military participation to a wider swath of the male population. Lendon likewise notes many instances of Roman troops acting aggressively and competitively without, or even against, orders, while downplaying the common attribution of Roman success to her armies’ forB O O K R E V I E W S