Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C

Customer Reviews

• Dreams of Alexander

  When reading this book a few years ago, I recall waking up in the middle of the night from vivid dreams of participating in or seeing ancient battles and camp sites. How many history books can do that to you? On the more intellectual side, realizing the single handed trans-continental Hellenic world creation as consequence of Alexander's crazy ambition is the kind of twist in history that made me think if the whole course of history would be the same without him - Alexander the great. I got a feeling of Alexander's personality beyond the glory truly brought to life, without diminishing anything from a glory well deserved.

• Alexander the Despot

  Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography is no starry-eyed account of this famous general. Indeed, Green takes a cynical attitude toward his subject - one that I think is refreshing in our current day when many ancient warlords are hailed as visionaries or enlightened despots (for example, Jack Weatherford's otherwise excellent biography of Genghis Khan Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World hails the Mongol as a harbinger of international trade). Green's Alexander of Macedon is somewhat older (originally printed in the early 1970s, revised in 1992), but his skepticism and lucid writing make the book worth reading for any fan of ancient history.
  
  The book is probably more appropriate to academic audiences or readers familiar with the ancient world, but I would also cautiously recommend it to newcomers. At some points, Green seems intent on employing "elite erudition" (big words), such as "tergiversation" (def: evasive, tendency to switch sides). I'm no dummy - I have a J.D. from a top law school - but a few times I was lost. Some of his analogies aren't clear to a reader not steeped in ancient Greek history (I never did quite figure out what he meant when he said the Macedonian king's status was like that of a Mycenaean "wanax"). Nevertheless, these problems seem limited to the introduction and parts of the first chapter. As the narrative progresses, the writing becomes much smoother and accessible. By the middle of the book, you'll have trouble putting it down.
  
  The first part of the book - a good 100 pages or 1/5 the total - focuses on Macedonia and Alexander's father, Philipp II. Unique among great historical leaders, Alexander's dad was an impressive ruler in his own right and exerted a powerful influence over Alexander the Great. This section also provides a very useful background to the Hellenistic world before Alexander's conquests.
  
  Green recognizes that Alexander was a brilliant strategist, but also points out his flaws. In doing so, he demystifies Alexander and humanizes him into something we would recognize - a charismatic and brilliant, but flawed leader. Militarily, Alexander had a gift for guessing his opponents' moves and employing psychologically devastating tactics (what we'd call psychological operations). However, Alexander was a poor politician and government manager. After conquering a territory, he would generally either co-opt the local leadership and move on. He seldom stopped to improve public administration or consolidate his holdings. This led to subsequent local rebellions, plentiful usurpers, and ultimately the dissolution of the empire upon his death. And, as a Macedonian, he never really did learn how to get along with the Greeks, whom Alexander often feared would form a fifth front.
  
  Green also shows a refreshing skepticism toward ancient sources, much of which he discounts as propaganda. Sometimes funny, often brash, Macedonian propaganda has helped shape much of our view of history. As such, Green's book necessarily challenges many of the ancient sources and some modern portrayals of Alexander (most notably Oliver Stone's Alexander, Revisited - The Final Cut [Blu-ray]). However, Green never engages in ad hominem attacks against his subject - he comes across as an eminently fair judge of history. He very helpfully proposes alternative interpretations to Macedonian propaganda and is not shy about highlighting gaps in the historical record. For example, Green cites convincing evidence that Darius' army at Issus was as small or smaller than Alexander's - not the 600,000 sometimes cited. Green even argues that Macedonian propaganda covered up Alexanders first - and only - defeat at the first battle of Granicus. The Appendix provides a particularly fascinating insight into his methodology toward ancient sources, recreating a radically different - and somewhat convincing - account of the battle. I think this ultimately provides the reader with a far more interesting and accurate biography of Alexander.
  
  Ultimately, Green claims Hubris led to Alexander's downfall. At some point, Alexander went beyond his mission of defeating the Persian Empire and was consumed by an insatiable "pathos" or curiosity to keep conquering to the end of the world (in modern parlance, "mission creep"). But throughout his journeys, Alexander becomes even more egomaniacal to the point of claiming divine status. He engages in purges of his top officers at the slightest rumor. Perhaps the most devastating indictment is his march through the Gedrosian Desert, when Green claims Alexander took the desert route to set a new record, and as a result lost over 50,000 soldiers, women, and children (that is certainly a different type of record). In the end, power consumes itself.
  
  If you've ever been curious about history's most famous general, I definitely recommend Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon.

• Alexander the Despot

  Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography is no starry-eyed account of this famous general. Indeed, Green takes a cynical attitude toward his subject - one that I think is refreshing in our current day when many ancient warlords are hailed as visionaries or enlightened despots (for example, Jack Weatherford's otherwise excellent biography of Genghis Khan Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World hails the Mongol as a harbinger of international trade). Green's Alexander of Macedon is somewhat older (originally printed in the early 1970s, revised in 1992), but his skepticism and lucid writing make the book worth reading for any fan of ancient history.
  
  The book is probably more appropriate to academic audiences or readers familiar with the ancient world, but I would also cautiously recommend it to newcomers. At some points, Green seems intent on employing "elite erudition" (big words), such as "tergiversation" (def: evasive, tendency to switch sides). I'm no dummy - I have a J.D. from a top law school - but a few times I was lost. Some of his analogies aren't clear to a reader not steeped in ancient Greek history (I never did quite figure out what he meant when he said the Macedonian king's status was like that of a Mycenaean "wanax"). Nevertheless, these problems seem limited to the introduction and parts of the first chapter. As the narrative progresses, the writing becomes much smoother and accessible. By the middle of the book, you'll have trouble putting it down.
  
  The first part of the book - a good 100 pages or 1/5 the total - focuses on Macedonia and Alexander's father, Philipp II. Unique among great historical leaders, Alexander's dad was an impressive ruler in his own right and exerted a powerful influence over Alexander the Great. This section also provides a very useful background to the Hellenistic world before Alexander's conquests.
  
  Green recognizes that Alexander was a brilliant strategist, but also points out his flaws. In doing so, he demystifies Alexander and humanizes him into something we would recognize - a charismatic and brilliant, but flawed leader. Militarily, Alexander had a gift for guessing his opponents' moves and employing psychologically devastating tactics (what we'd call psychological operations). However, Alexander was a poor politician and government manager. After conquering a territory, he would generally either co-opt the local leadership and move on. He seldom stopped to improve public administration or consolidate his holdings. This led to subsequent local rebellions, plentiful usurpers, and ultimately the dissolution of the empire upon his death. And, as a Macedonian, he never really did learn how to get along with the Greeks, whom Alexander often feared would form a fifth front.
  
  Green also shows a refreshing skepticism toward ancient sources, much of which he discounts as propaganda. Sometimes funny, often brash, Macedonian propaganda has helped shape much of our view of history. As such, Green's book necessarily challenges many of the ancient sources and some modern portrayals of Alexander (most notably Oliver Stone's Alexander, Revisited - The Final Cut [Blu-ray]). However, Green never engages in ad hominem attacks against his subject - he comes across as an eminently fair judge of history. He very helpfully proposes alternative interpretations to Macedonian propaganda and is not shy about highlighting gaps in the historical record. For example, Green cites convincing evidence that Darius' army at Issus was as small or smaller than Alexander's - not the 600,000 sometimes cited. Green even argues that Macedonian propaganda covered up Alexanders first - and only - defeat at the first battle of Granicus. The Appendix provides a particularly fascinating insight into his methodology toward ancient sources, recreating a radically different - and somewhat convincing - account of the battle. I think this ultimately provides the reader with a far more interesting and accurate biography of Alexander.
  
  Ultimately, Green claims Hubris led to Alexander's downfall. At some point, Alexander went beyond his mission of defeating the Persian Empire and was consumed by an insatiable "pathos" or curiosity to keep conquering to the end of the world (in modern parlance, "mission creep"). But throughout his journeys, Alexander becomes even more egomaniacal to the point of claiming divine status. He engages in purges of his top officers at the slightest rumor. Perhaps the most devastating indictment is his march through the Gedrosian Desert, when Green claims Alexander took the desert route to set a new record, and as a result lost over 50,000 soldiers, women, and children (that is certainly a different type of record). In the end, power consumes itself.
  
  If you've ever been curious about history's most famous general, I definitely recommend Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon.

• A Fantastic Read!

  I have read Peter Green's other works and translations as well but his retelling of Alexander the Greats life fantastic. It is a very lucid read and will quickly captivate you. He presents a fairly partial view of Alexander and makes a few obvious points that Alexanders success was very much due to Phillip II's army and leaves it up to the reader to decide whether he participated in the planning of Phillip II's death, yet takes pains to point out that Olympia was probably the culprit. Despite the momentum provided by Phillip II's army that Alexander so nearly brings to disaster, Peter Green never the less makes a compelling effort to decipher Alexanders plausible motives for his actions based on works of Arrian Plutarch amongst others. I have read this book several times and recommend it to anyone desiring to read about Alexander's life before resorting to original sources.

• really good historical biography

  Peter Green presented us really good historical biography of the greatest conqueror in the human history. This book strongly bases on the historical sources, what is its very strong point. This book was written by the specialist in the subject, who knows how to make his text really interesting for the reader. His writing style is not dry, it is really readable and also very informative.
  
  I like author's irony, which made me laugh from time to time.
  
  You have to be aware of one thing while reading this good book. Peter Green is strongly affected by his experience of the World War II. He served in the British air forces in Burma. World War II influence on him is clearly seen in his presentation of the historical events, which can be found in his books. He very often emphasizes people suffering, which exists in every war. It is a good feature of his writings I think, because nowadays many people living in developed countries do not know what war really means. This is a history, which learns us about the reality, not mythology. Reader should learn something from the books.
  
  In this book we see Alexander the Great as a real man, not his imagination created by next generations. But Alexander, the greatest conqueror in the human history seems to be even greater thanks to such deep presentation of his positive and negative features.
  
  Highly recommended book not only for people, who like history.