I dont like to hate on any thing about Persia because anything that gets people interested is good, but I have fairly negative feelings toward that book. Nothing I say is going to be particularly unique. You can find these same opinions (and opposition) from many people. 1/11 https://twitter.com/Dojo_Of_Life/status/1294321857315983360

Holland is a great writer, but often uses the tropes of East v West and "Western Civilization." . The full title "...and the Battle for the West" puts this on full display.

Not only does that carry a lot of harmful connotations, but in this case is anachronistic. 2/

There was no "Western World" in 480 BC. Historically, culturally, and economically Greece was part of the same cultural sphere as Lydia, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Syria. In the west, the Greeks saw nothing but Greek colonies, Phoenician colonies, and brutish Celtic tribes. 3/

Persian Fire is also largely a re-telling of Herodotus, which fundamentally makes it more of a Greek history book than a Persian one, in my opinion. Holland is rarely all that critical of Herodotus' understanding of Persia, and underused other sources, imo. 4/

Relying heavily on Herodotus also creates ideological pitfalls. Herodotus nurtured the idea of Hellas as one culture against barbaric Persians because Athens and Sparta were headed toward war. He was trying to foster unity between enemies, not describe Greece as it really was. 5/

But in a world where we usually do conceive as the Greeks as one group that's easy to miss. So Holland tends to portray the wars as an ideological battle between Greek ideas of freedom and Persian ideas of dominance.

That gives far too much credit to Persia here. 6/

The Persians had conquered many people with many ideologies. The Greeks were just a clump of city states at the periphery. They were half conquered and just annoying enough to poke the bear in 498 BC and then slapped it in 490. 7/

They had some resources and trade routes that were worth the trouble of taking, and they were a nuisance, so Persia tried to conquer them.

Much like Darius chasing the European Scythians, it was ultimately more trouble than it was worth just to prove a point. 8/

It was not an ideological war for the Persians, just another annoying border that would be easier to manage with a satrap.

He also ends at or before the Treaty of Callias, iirc. That's fine for a book on the Persian Wars* but that's not how this is framed. 9/

*actually not imo

It starts with Cyrus, far more background than you need for the wars (ie Peter Green), but the start for Persian history. Except that doesn't end in 449 BC. I compare it to a biography of Eisenhower that starts winding down in 1943 and ends in 1945. There's a lot left ahead. 10/

In short, any book that engages people with Achaemenid history is good, but someone looking to learn about the Achaemenids for their own sake would be served better by other books.

I personally recommend Ancient Persia by Matt Waters 11/11