This is a small but thoughtful book which gives a very good overview to the concept of the warrior's code, especially as how it differs from that of the terrorist or the ordinary civilian. While I would have liked him to go more in-depth, it was certainly worthwhile reading. Pressfield's examples, drawn from ancient history as well as recent events, ground his ideas into their real world implications. ( )

Some nice, possibly apocryphal anecdotes from history. ( )

I have a firm view that the only way to end war is for people to refuse to go war. It really is that simple. In the present, I often wonder whose nation is being secured through "national security". It tends to relate to a particular categorisation of humans that distinguishes one from the "other". I have firm views about global trade, institutional frameworks, and so on, that transcend the tribal. When reading this work, I could not help but think that the "ethos" discussed was Orientalist at its core. The sense of awe directed towards the Spartan way of life denies that the Spartans brought about their own demise, and indeed, ended the grandeur of Ancient Greece. The idea that dominant cultures are somehow "right" and everything and everyone else suffers while "to the victor go the spoils", denies Sun Tzu's realist understanding of conflict and its aftermath. The final section deals with inner wars, and I found this most useful. But I could not help but think that the ideas of courage put forth here are a significant portions of the Tsar's cake: "we rule you, we fool you, we shoot at you". That is not to say that a warrior ethos did not exist, but I think the simplicity of the warrior ethos today assumes a monocultural entity defending itself from an attacker. Such simple conceptions of morality are so far in the past that the notion of a warrior ethos, beyond the internal wars that individuals must fight each day, is, in effect, a shirking of one's responsibilities as a citizen of humanity. If this view is naive, then what is it to simply do one's duty unquestioningly? Hannah Arendt supplies many of the answers to such a question. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be regarded as "courageous" for holding such individual principles. Until, of course, we are found wanting for not having stood up to tyranny. Pressfield mentions Jung's "collective consciousness" and other ideas that counter the romantic view of the warrior ethos, but I was disappointed that the connection between Ancient Greece and the present whitewashes a good deal of history. Pressfield mentions that such ideas are anachronistic, but this is mentioned in passing, and barely scratches the surface. Reading this has sparked more questions than answers and therein, I think, lies its value. ( )

The Amazon reviews for this book are mostly fives and ones, people either love it or hate it. Much of the hate seems to stem from there being too little book for the money and the lovers just love SP. I enjoy SP's writing. He's well-read but not particularly scholarly. He develops themes rather than exacting recreations of history.

Cost aside, it's a nice little volume that distills some of SP's thoughts on the warrior class from his other writings, which makes it a useful teaching tool. Our first reaction to "warrior" is usually something Conan the Barbarian-like describing what is best in life: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." Being a warrior is common to the military, but in any pitched battle against a foe, a competing politic, a disease, social malaise, whatever, we may all identify with and express the virtues of a warrior. SP writes that, "every warrior virtue proceeds from this--courage, selflessness, love of and loyalty to one's comrades, patience, self-command, the will to endure adversity." In this book, you'll find how some of those virtues were adapted in different societies and by different leaders. It's a quick read and SP identifies what it means to be a warrior personally and professionally. As a former Marine and a student of the arts (literary, aesthetic, and military) he's thought a lot on the subject and it's worth the $10. ( )

My review of this book will differ markedly from most. I am not a fan of the Spartans, in fact I find it inconceivable that an ethical individual can find a single redeeming feature in their society. Sparta was a militarily oriented state bereft of art, science, culture, and commerce. The Spartans were able to maintain their society only by a reliance on a fascist government that ruthlessly exploited and terrorised a subject population.

The most indicative example of the inherent evil of Spartan society was the annual declaration of war, made by the Spartan ephors (senior magistrates), against the helots, the serfs/slaves/labourers of ancient Sparta. Essentially, the Spartan ruling class declared war on their own people. This declaration gave the Spartan government, the military, and the secret police, a pseudo-legal justification to torture and murder malcontents, an act that was carried out on a regular basis (something like when the president says you can do it, it is legal).

As for the virtues of the Spartan military machine look to the "Finest Hour" of the ancient Greeks—the defeat of the Persian invasion of 480-79 BCE. This was a victory gained with the leadership of democratic Athens and the democratically elected Athenian statesman, Themistocles. It was the Athenians who withstood two Persian invasions, the destruction and occupation of their homeland, and a forced evacuation of their city. In comparison the Spartans were terrified of the Persians even approaching the Peloponnese—their rigid, hierarchical society was ready to collapse if confronted. Sparta was also tardy (to give the best interpretation), in resisting the Persians, and showed every inclination of coming to an arrangement with the Persian King. A half century later, the Spartans dealt away the hard won independence of the Greek city states of Asia in return for Persian assistance in their war against Athens. Then, following their victory over Athens, the Spartans established a short lived hegemony in Greece. One noted for its oppression, murder, sheer lack of imagination, and corruption—corruption by the noble Spartans.

The history of ancient Sparta consisted of several centuries of brutal warfare, largely for self-aggrandisement, and then a collapse into an amusement park for Roman tourists. Sparta contributed nothing to human civilisation or social progress.

To answer a question Pressfield poses, Leonidas most likely had waterboared (and other things) innumerable uppity helots, and if questioned about the practice, would express amazement at being so questioned—and then maybe question the questioner.

This dream about Spartan "honour" is in reality a nightmare. With all its many imperfections look to Athens, the birthplace of western civilisation, for an example of what was best in the ancient world. I suggest reading the Funeral Oration of the Athenian statesman Pericles for an illuminating self-portrait of Athens. You can also of course read the Spartan thoughts on these subjects—no wait, you cannot—the Spartans did not write anything.

So, the Spartans were great because they "exposed" (some would call it murder), new born infants who had minor, unimportant birth defects, they despised those who had physical disabilities (Stephen Hawking, for example), they beat children who could not steal food well enough, and had families ripped apart as children were compelled to live in military dormitories.

There is no evidence of this, but what about the rape of children in ancient Sparta? How many Spartan boys, who, when they were seven years old and torn away from their families for the good of the Spartan state, were sexually molested? And then, due to this "honour", never complained or protested. How much brutal bullying and violence took place? There is nothing here but authoritarianism. The ideal "virtue" of every fascist state.

On the subject of sex, in every modern laudation of ancient Sparta I look in vain for praise of Spartan bisexuality, where solders were encouraged to have a fellow, warrior lover, so that they would always be compelled to be brave in battle. This attribute of the ancient Spartans is evidently an attribute not part of the modern "warrior ethos".


Pressfield's book begins with quotes from Spartan mothers, chock full of military virtue, urging their sons onwards into combat and war, however, how about someone in all of this gaggle of gung-hoism asking one simple question, "Just what is it we are fighting for?" Were the Spartans suppressing a helot revolt, or invading a neighbouring Greek state to gain more helots? Was it one more example of the "great game", where armies march and men die—usually civilians—so that pieces can be moved around on the chess board of statecraft, and the wealthy amass more wealth?

"The Warrior Ethos" speaks of courage, but how much courage is involved in being indoctrinated, brutalised into obedience, threatened with death for disobedience, and then marching into battle to kill complete strangers for "honour" and "military glory"? How many British soldiers marched into German machine gun fire in World War One, obediently? How many German machine gunners killed British men they may have grown to known and even befriend in a different reality? A truer example of courage was Albert Einstein, a life long pacifist, who penned a statement deploring German involvement in WW1.

In reality, military power is largely exercised against the citizens of their "own" country. The upper echelons of the military come from the upper echelons of society, and the true purpose of the military is to protect the status quo, and the ruling class. For example, the French troops defeated by Prussia in 1871 were rapidly rearmed by their conquerors and turned around to attack the true enemy, the citizens and workers of Paris who had formed the Paris Commune. Bismarck had no desire to destroy the French ruling class, rather the opposite, his goal was to cut a better deal for the Prussian ruling class. The true threat came from uppity workers. In 1932 Douglas McArthur used military force to dispel and kill the "Bonus Marchers". Right now in the Middle East, it is the military who are attacking and killing civilian protesters who are fighting for social justice. On a more mundane level the military are regularly used as strike breakers.

True courage consists of doing what is right, even when it runs against the interests of the ruling class of society. I respect far more the courage of the universally deplored "peace nicks" who protested against the western invasion and destruction of Vietnam, than I do the soldiers who invaded a country most had never heard of before they were conscripted.

Soldiers tend to join the military for a job, because of conscription, because of debt, because of petty crime—troubles. Army recruiters target low income populations, with promises of jobs, education, and what ever it takes. The notion that "warriors" join the military for noble service is a fiction. For most it is a route out of poverty, sometimes. And of course, the chance to make a great deal of money by becoming a "mercenary", working for Blackwater, or what ever name is current.

Pressfield mentions the Japanese and Bushido. I suggest a closer examination of the reality of the situation in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. Japan was being screwed economically by the USA. Its ruling class was feeling the heat. They could either modernise, which would mean a change in the ruling class, or fight. Guess which the generals chose? The background to this noble war effort was squabbling for power and influence, assassination, corruption—the usual story, but of course, the common soldiers were told (indoctrinated) to be noble warriors. Keep you mouth shut and do what you are told.


To put this ethos into perspective, it is all too easy to place "our" warriors into this noble "warrior ethos" category, but what about the other guy? In WW2 did the German troops who invaded France and the Soviet Union possess the "warrior ethos"? The Nazi troops who rounded up Jews and homosexuals, did they possess the "warrior ethos"? Would the German troops on the eastern front have a copy of "West of Honour" or "The Warrior Ethos" in their pocket? Did the Soviet troops who invaded Afghanistan (such a dangerous country Afghanistan, it is so dangerous that it has been invaded by just about every major power at one time or another), possess the "warrior ethos".

An example of true bravery, of help and assistance to those in need, comes from the work of NGOs. People who volunteer to aid those in the 3rd world, by teaching, training, by building and not destroying—useful projects, not bombs or napalm.

To be fair Pressfield does attempt to distinguish between "noble" warriors and tribalism, but it is a distinction entirely lacking in the practical application of military force. Pressfield says that respect for civilians is an essential part of the warrior ethos, but when is this applied in practice? Civilian targets are invariably considered military targets when necessity or even perceived necessity warrants. In the Vietnam War, how many Vietnamese villages (as well as Cambodian and Laos) were destroyed? I have seen estimates of Vietnamese civilian casualties between two and three million, which is correct I do not know nor care. Dresden, Coventry, Alesia, the list of destroyed cities and their civilian populations goes on, and on, and always for good, sound military reasons.

Pressfield mentions Alexander the Great in his book, and also writes about the Macedonian conqueror in his historical fiction novels, always in a praiseworthy fashion. So, lets ask the $64,000 question, why did Alexander have to invade Persia—ok, his father had started the war—but why did he need to continue? Is there a good reason? At the end of the day did anything really change? Ok, the Hellenistic Era, but the Greeks (and Macedonians), could have continued to expand westwards and most likely had made a longer lasting and more substantial impact on future society in the Med, than they were to do in the Middle East. How about Alexander staying home and improving the Macedonian irrigation system, building a few schools, a road or three, construct a park or some gardens—you get my idea.

Last, Pressfield mentions Thermopylae. Just what is it about Thermopylae? It was a monumental screwup. The plan was to tarry a few days at a defensible spot, give the Persians a bloody nose, in order to put some backbone into the oligarchic northern Greek states, who were ready to go over to the Persians at the first opportunity. The key feature: get out, retreat, tactically advance to the rear—do not suffer a defeat. Leonidas screwed up, turning a minor victory into a disaster. A disaster so disastrous that it had to be "spun" into a noble act of courage, bravery, honour yada yada.


I will leave anyone who has read this far with two quotes. (bold is me)

"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, quoted in the Nuremberg Diary.


"We have learned, a little late no doubt, that for states as for individuals real wealth consists not in acquiring or invading the domains of others, but in developing one's own. We have learned that all extensions of territory, all usurpations, by force or by fraud, which have long been connected by prejudice with the idea of 'rank,' of 'hegemony,' of 'political stability,' of 'superiority' in the order of the Powers, are only the cruel jests of political lunacy, false estimates of power, and that their real effect is to increase the difficulty of administration and to diminish the happiness and security of the governed for the passing interest or for the vanity of those who govern..."
Talleyrand, at the congress of Vienna.


(and there were not two million men at Thermopylae, maybe 100k soldiers. I mean really, that number is entirely impossible.) ( )