Having read - and enjoyed, and learned from - Persian Fire, I would like to share an impression, and follow up with a question. The dramatic quality of the book, and the "ease of read", to a large extent are derived from colorful personalities. It is much easier to identify with a (positive or negative) hero than with anonymous social forces. This technique, however, favors a view of history as the result of the actions of a few ingenious scheming men, which is rightfully questionable. I have the impression that you are quite aware of this issue, and you have somehow built it into your story. The term "anonymous social forces" versus "visionary sage" is literally taken from your book, p.70, where you describe the "invention" of Lycurgus by the Spartans. This in no way keeps you from doing exactly as the Spartans did, and attribute to Lykurgus (and Solon, and a large number of others) the heroic deeds that formed world history. In fact, particularly in battle, personal qualities make all the difference. But they exist - I don't have to tell you this - based upon and embedded in a culture, an economy, a social system. And here is my question: Do you think it is necessary in order to "bridge the gap" to use this heroicising view of history? To an extent?