Customer Reviews

Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This book should be evaluated for what it was intended to be by the author, and not for what it was not!

This is a very broad summary intended for laypeople, not a detailed book for professional historians (nor even, really, for students studying the period). If you want to go much deeper, do read Robin Lane Fox's biography, which is scholarly. As such, I think it did a good job. It is written with a lightness of style - almost journalistic - and can be read in its entirety easily in a day. Initially, I found the anachronistic comparisons to modern events (e.g., Iraq War) a little intrusive and grating, but later I thought: why not? After all, if it helps to make ancient history have some relevance for the reader and encourages the lay-reader to learn more about the past then, so be it, the end justifies the means.

I have now enjoyed several of Norman Cantor's history books, partly for their light, summary nature, and partly for his easy and engaging writing style. They well suit non-fictional reading at the end of a hard day's work, when concentaration levels are, inevitably, not at their peak. I encourage the reader to try more of Norman Cantor's books if you liked this one, or to try this one if you liked other books of his.

For what it was intended to be, an interesting and engaging book.

With all due respect to the late Professor Cantor, the text needed a moderately interested editor. While amusing factoids and insights occasionally appear in it (though hardly provocative), much of the book reads as well as an undergraduate term paper for an introductory history course. There is a lack of cohesiveness and flow throughout the chapters, which sometimes lose focus. Considering the credentials and past successes of the author, I have to believe that an earlier draft of the book was mistakenly given to the printers. While a succinct piece on Alexander is welcome, this book sadly fails to provide an insightful and satisfying snapshot of the conqueror.

In my opinion, if readers are interested in an engrossing psychological examination of the historical Alexander, they would be better served by Michael Woods' documentary and/or companion book.

I think I have found one of the worst books I have ever read about the King of Macedon. In this small book of less than 200 pages I learned nothing that I did not already know about the life of Alexander. There is suprisingly little detail and depth to the subject and after finishing the book I wondered why the author even bothered writing a book on the man. Cantor even rehashes at length the biased myth brought forth by the Romans that Alexander and his army would have been unable to conquer the city of Rome. This idea is mere speculation and propaganda that the author and ancient Roman historians could not support. At the time of Alexander's death Rome was still a backwater town with no standing professional army, little cavalry, no navy, and had recently been trounced and plundered by marauding Celts. I would suggest spending your $20 on other books about Alexander the Great by authors like Green, Cartledge, Dodge, Fox, Fuller, Hammond, Wilcken, or even Wood.
Hannibal

This is the worst book ever written on Alexander. There are historical inaccuracies on nearly every page. Heresay and universally discounted legend are presented uncritically alongside historically accepted fact.

This book is a gem, in large because the analysis of the "greatness" of Alexander in the fifth and closing chapter is designed to generate thought, debate and ideas for every student of history.

"The impact of Alexander on the Mediterranean world has always been a subject for debate," Cantor notes, and proceeds to add provocatively to that debate. Alexander, like Achilles, Caesar, King Arthur, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, embodies the spirit of the times and the people of their eras. Alexander and Achilles were heroic; Caesar and Arthur were innovators; Lincoln and Churchill gave words to enhance the decency of great nations.

Lincoln, to cite an example, did not invent democracy in America. However, when he defined democracy as government "of the people, by the people, for the people", he greatly sharpened and enhanced already existing attitudes. Alexander did the same in his time; he did not invent war, but he set an ideal seldom matched and thus established the warrior ideal for much of the Mediterannean. King Arthur does the same with his round table; Churchill gives credit to the British people for stopping Hitler.

Now, consider George Bush with his Texas swagger and flight suit while strutting across the deck of an aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished" as if he were a warrior. Alexander, in contrast to the coddled and well-protected life of Bush, survived numerous serious wounds acquired while leading his troops from the front. Whether it's Bush or Clinton or Reagan, there's a vast difference between Alexander and the perspiration and spin of today's leaders. As Canton aptly shows, it's why "the Great" title is retired.

Intended or not, there are numerous subtle parallels between ancient and modern events in the Near and Middle Easts. Alexander was successful because he responded immediately and brilliantly to local events rather than try to rule from afar; instead of being an ideologue, he worshipped every God he met along the route of his conquests.

Because he was handicapped by "faulty intelligence," when he reached Afghanistan and India he realized it was time to listen to his troops, then "cut and run". Why? To quote Cantor, "One of the old soldiers, a man named Coenis . . . . gave the speech of his life, ending with these words: 'Sir, if there is one thing above all others a successful man should know, it is when to stop'. Instead of trying to stay the course, Cantor says "Alexander sulked for two days but then tried to find a way to make this defeat appear to be a victory."

Cantor offers an intriguing psychological assessment of Alexander; not only was he "the supreme exemplar of that old pagan world" but he also knew how to sulk and then accept the will of his troops. Perhaps that is why there are no modern Alexanders; today we tend to look at his heroism, courage, strength and vision but overlook his ability to sulk.

It's a masterful biography, not merely because of what it says about Alexander but also for what it teaches us about ourselves.

Once again Mr. Cantor has delivered in one of his works and again some haters on these reviews do not grant him the respect he deserves in regards to his works. This is a brief survey of Alexander, it was not meant to be an extensive biography. It is a shame that Mr. Cantor is no longer with us to further expand our horizons on subjects that are difficult to comprehend and learn when sitting in a college course.

Please don't read this if you have a love of history or hope to attain one! If you have no knowledge of the ancient world at all, perhaps this book won't insult you, and you may proceed without my caution. If, however, you are more accustomed to Plutarch, Josephus,Edith Hamilton, etc - pass this one by and save your reading time for something more worthy.

I don't want to insult the author, I just want to caution readers. Excellent and real biographies are lasting, written without emotion or judgement of the time period, containing genuine facts that will enthrall if read in 200 BC or 2020 AD - this one will seem dated and irrelevant in as little as four years.

The first 70 pages of this are all over the place. Which is somewhat forgivable since the stated purpose of these chapters is to place Alexander's life in the context of his culture and relevant historical events. But the book itself is only 173 pages. Further, while the context doesn't by necessity need to be in chronological order, it's jarring to read first about how Alexander's successors were done away with after his death and then read about what happened to his father's other family after he took control of Macedonia.

Cantor makes the point throughout the book that it's a mistake to romanticize either Alexander or his time. True. However, I object to Cantor's categorizing both widespread homosexuality and bisexuality with pedophilia, child abuse and slavery. He also uses the word "whore" more than once, and without irony. For someone making the case for a subjectivist view of history, he's pretty judgmental.

Cantor also can't resist the urge to psychoanalyze his subject. In some ways we understand, but his theory that Alexander was caught in a Freudian love triangle with both of his parents isn't thoroughly backed up. Yes, they both sound overbearing and sexed up, but that doesn't entirely make his argument.

But: once he gets going, it's a good, quick read. Really, it doesn't take a long time to make the point that Alexander was an energetic, skilled leader who was more general than politician. Also, while Alexander was shrewd enough to give the people he "freed" from Persian rule more freedom than they had had before (most of the time), he did no such thing in Greece itself, where he destroyed Thebes to make a point to any other city-state that might rebel and regularly installed dictators. He was a man of expediency, not principle.

All in all, I found this to be a balanced account of the man's life, and while it took much of the sheen off of the legend, it was still impossible to discount the sometimes incredible achievements Alexander accomplished. However, it also demonstrates that there is a fine line between committed brilliance and stubborness.

Would you believe me if I told you that motion picture "Alexander, Director's Cut" was less painful to watch than the same three hours it took to read this book?

I was surprised about all the valuable time spent on homosexuality and the apparently loathsome parental relationships of Alexander. I seriously doubt such trivial accounts pivotally set the stage for Alexander's Conquest of the World. Inheriting a burgeoning dynasty as a Macedonian, having Aristotle as a tutor and being exposed to militaristic Sparta may have had greater influences upon Alexander. My contention is that the motion picture was not balanced and factually accurate.

For the reasons mentioned, I decided to purchase this book. Regrettably, readers are subjected to publishers who "wholesale" (said nicely) themselves. This book was written by a "lofty" author who flashes between passages of time in a lame attempt to connect the idealistic dots floundering in his own whimsical mind. My own analysis is absurd, but this is the context upon which this book was written.

The author flagrantly contradicts several of his own facts. For example, "Alexander rode Bucephalus into battle and would ride no other until the aged steed died." Later, during the Battle of Granicus, the author downplays the account of Plutarch for providing an inaccurate rendition. However, in the next paragraph, the author states: "Alexander lost his lance and his horse (not Bucephalus, who was either lame at the time or was considered too valuable to use in this battle)..." Even though Plutarch and others may not be historically accurate, which writer do you believe has more significance?

My frustration about this author is that he possessed all the training and experience. He had access to all the sources necessary to put together a masterpiece of literature that could at least compete on par with the writings of Plutarch.

There is not enough development about any of the interesting topics that readers want to know. Even the author wants to know. For example, "Why were the Greeks bisexual, with a strong proclivity to homosexuality, preferring usually boys and sometimes cohabiting with other adult males?" His answer covers the span of four to eight floundering sentences. The author does not delve into one of the most intense morality questions of the modern age. Instead, he slips into the "triumphs of the Christian Church" which occurred seven hundred years later. Categorically, he does not answer his own questions scattered throughout the entire book!

This book is being promoted as a serious biography about Alexander. It should be sitting at the checkout stand as a supermarket tabloid. Take it off the bookshelf.

As other commentators have noted, this book is more of a survey of the history about and around Alexander the Great than an original contribution to scholarship and knowledge. Taken on that basis, this is a good book - I would not hesitate to use this as part of a general survey course on ancient history for a lower-undergraduate or advanced-secondary level, as the writing is clear, accessible and flows easily from topic to topic.

Perhaps the one drawback I see with regard to the text arrangement is that it probably makes more sense to those who already have a background in the history than to those who do not. The ancient world from pre-history Greece and Persia to the time of Alexander (over a thousand years) collapsed into a mere thirty pages will be a difficult task for anyone. In the first chapter, Cantor sets the stage by giving a rather sweeping account of the history of the 'known' world leading up to this time, together with a brief account of some of the legacies of Alexander and Hellenism, and a few details about modern archaeological and historical research in the area.

The subsequent chapters see Alexander developed more fully, both in terms of military and political strategist as well as in terms of psychological being. Alexander was both a product of his world as well as the maker of his world in many ways. Cantor contrasts Alexander the Great with Julius Caesar, often likened and compared, developing an Alexander who is much more the military purist than a political creature (more of a Patton than an Eisenhower, in modern terms).

Cantor's last chapter develops the aftermath and the legacies of Alexander much more fully. This includes his actual influence on nations and military issues as well as his heroic and mythic figure that continues to inspire in different directions up to the present day.

This book is not a deep analysis. One commentator describes the book as a disappointment, given Cantor's ability and reputation, but I have to wonder if that was his intent. This looks and feels like a general survey, intended to serve as some historical underpinning for those whose only likely exposure to Alexander comes from Hollywood films. Are there better books on Alexander? The answer is certainly, yes. Are those better books as accessible, as likely to be read by the general reader? I leave that question for the reader to decide.

Given the option, I would award this text three-and-a-half stars; it has good writing, good material, and raises good questions (which might prompt readers to read further in other sources). There are several points at which more explanation or development would have been helpful.