Customer Reviews

Alexander the Great

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is a well written and seemingly well researched book.

I am no scholar of Alexander though. This is where my frustration begins. This biography is not written in a linier or chronological style. It is more of a thematic presentation.

If, like me, you are not already familiar with the characters and events of Alexander's life, you will be frustrated as the book jumps from event to event as the author explores the persona of Alexander.

I will put this book back on the shelf for a while and revert back to a more conventional chronological biography.

Despite some reservations, I'll give this book a top rating based on the quality of the scholarship. The author defines his aims in the preface: to "do full justice" to Alexander's achievements -- but "respecting the limits of the evidence and of the historian's craft." Many of the popular biographers of Alexander have made of him what they wished him to be. Cartledge reminds the reader over and over of the paucity of solid information about Alexander's nature and character.

This is not the book to read first if you don't know much about Alexander the Great. The author presumes you are familiar with the outlines of his life and jumps into thematic descriptions. Chapter titles include: Alexander and the Greeks, The Divinity of Alexander, and The Generalship of Alexander. He is conservative with his sources and what emerges is a bare-bones outline of Alexander's life. Speculation is clearly labeled. We have few flights of fancy about Alexander's love life or his supposed aims to create an empire of universal peace and brotherhood.

In taking a narrow view of Alexander, what emerges is not overly favorable. That's fine. Alexander is also one of the enigmatic persons of history and he will be seen as a monster by some and as an enlightened idealist by others -- although all those massacres are hard to explain away. Cartledge is probably more reliable than most in writing of Alexander and he attempts to enliven the story with an occasional attempt at humor or frivolity. The maps of Alexander's five great battles are outstanding.

Smallchief

Paul Cartledge has done an excellent job of delving into the motivations and influences of Alexander the Great in his book, The Hunt For A New Past. Drawing on his expertise on the Greeks and the Hellenic period, Cartledge theorizes on the man in a collection of chapters that are essentially seperate essays on the man, myth, and legend of Alexander the Great.

This book is extremely well written and chock full of detail and source material, sometimes overwhelmingly so. Cartledge writes each chapter as if it is an independent piece. Indeed if you read the book its best to read a chapter at a time since the chapter jump back and forth in terms of linear time and military campaigns. A basic knowledge of the Greek era and its political and social intrigues helps in the understanding of Cartledge's arguments.

This is a book for those that want to know WHY history was made by certain men, rather than a year by year re-telling of Alexander's adventures. Cartledge puts his opinions out front, stating clearly where he disagrees with others and where he is merely speculating, which is quite refreshing in modern academia. Whether you agree or not, he argues his points with elegance and any preconceptions of Alexander you may have are challenged. Cartledge succeeds in producing a work that forces the reader to re-examine their views on Alexander, which is ultimately what makes entertaining history.

Being a history addict and a Soldier has led me to read everything printed in english on Alexander the Great (nuministic and logistical books included). Some biographers depict him as a shining idealized soldier-king, while others as a drunken despot on a self delusional path to deification. Cartledge balances the historical record with fresh interpretations of events and a common sense test of putting the reader in Alexander's shoes at the moment of each event. This leads to a connection with the man and an understanding of his actions that lacks in most biographies of Alexander. The answer, it seems, is that Alexander was a man like any other before and since; brilliant and flawed, just like the rest of us. If you are going to read your first book on Alexander, or only one book ever, this is the one to pick up.

If you enjoy relaxing with an informative and entertaining biolography, this is not the book for you. The thematic presentation and frequent reference to other works, both recent and ancient make this a study of Alexander with the emphasis on "study". Almost every page required referrals to the Timeline, the Maps, the "Dramatis Personae", and the Glossary. I found myself having to work through parts of the book as I would a text book. In other words, its too much like schoolwork! I do have to concede that Cartledge is extremely knowledgable on the subject and, as the book jacket suggest, may well be "our leading expert on the subject of Sparta and ancient Greece."

If you are really into the history of this era and already have a fair knowledge of Alexander and the politics of his time, you will enjoy. As for myself, I prefer the "lay person", chronological styles of history writers such as David McCollough and Stephen Ambrose.

This biography of the Big Alex was clearly not intended as a dry scholarly work. It is a relatively light reading, as regards the style - almost informal (cf. "When Julius [Caesar] was on an early tour of imperial duty in Spain, Plutarch relates, he is said to have gazed at a statue of Alexander [...]. And he wept because, whereas Alexander had died at thirty-two, king of so many peoples, he himself at that same age had not yet achieved any brilliant success. I am no Julius Caesar. But I am fify-six at the time of writing this - so you can, I hope, imagine how I feel." p. 39). That makes the reading highly entertaining but it also shows that this book, while well researched, does not obsess about the protocol of scientific writing (footnotes etc.). It is targetting intelligent non-specialists or perhaps college students who want to be introduced to the story of Alexander. That is why the book contains a glossary and an overview of all important figures (experts in the field presumably know these things by heart so the book would not include that if it was designed for them).

The book is organized thematically, not exactly chronologically. The chapters are titled: Alexander and the Macedonians, Alexander and the Greeks etc. The disadvantage of this is that you do not get a clear chronological story line (but that's for dimwits anyway). The advantage is, however, that many facts and dates and events are mentioned in several chapters - and this repetition (though every time with a slightly different point in mind - depending on the topic of each chapter) is a very good way of remembering them. The book contains quite a bit of military history but does not provide minutely detailed descriptions of the battles. Adequate space is devoted to general background so there is a lot of useful info about Greek antiquity in general and I thought that was very convenient.

Overall, I thought the book was very informative and helpful. Interestingly, I had seen the movie with Colin Farrel first and I did not think much of it. Now, having read the book, I'm thinking there may have been points in the movie that I may have missed. Because what the book did achieve was to convince me that Alexander may have been somewhat more complicated a figure than just a smack-everything-that's-in-you-way type of guy. I might go see it once more.

I give four stars and not five because I feel that even the lightness of style and the push for popularisation should have their limits. Let me illustrate what I mean by a quote that admittedly made me LOL but which I thought was somewhat misplaced in the book: "That Alexander was a military leader of genius is clear, but what of his character as a general? We are not privileged to know whether he, like the British Commander Orde Wingate of Abyssinia (as it then was before the Second World War), ever gave his officers their battle orders lying in his tent stark naked and smoothing his pubic hair with someone else's toothbrush." (pp.184-185) See what I mean?

I was very disappointed in this book. Don't waste your time or money. Instead, get Robin Lane Fox's "Alexander the Great," which is generally agreed to be THE great book about Alexander. And if you prefer fiction, go to Mary Renault's books about Alexander, such as "The Persian Boy." Renault's "The Nature of Alexander" is an outstanding nonfiction title on Alexander as well.

If you want to read about Alexander and have FUN while doing it, try "Alexander the Fabulous" by Michael Alvear, which is an amazingly humorous yet well-researched book. It makes learning ancient history fun and relevant to today's readers.

There are quite a few BAD books out there about Alexander the Great. Stick with Robin Lane Fox and Mary Renault to get the highest calibre of research and the most thorough coverage of his life. Then go for Arrian's account of Alexander for the best classical text on him. And wind it all up with some laughs as you read the Michael Alvear book! Then you'll be ready to go see Oliver Stone's "Alexander," and you'll be the most qualified person on your block to discuss it afterwards.

Alexander. After 2,328 years who else can be identified by a single name, without a title, and still be almost universally known? Often beloved, or at least highly respected, in the west, almost universally despised in much of the east, very few with knowledge of Alexander have no feelings one way or the other.
Over the years I have read almost every book reasonably available about this remarkable man. Some of these books are highly informative but ponderous in the extreme. Some treat Alexander as the untarnished hero, the darling of the west, while others treat him as a villain and a drunk, unworthy of praise.
It is up to each person to decide who Alexander was or is, but Mr. Cartledge has produced a well-written book, informative, without bias or agenda. It has excellent detail without dragging the reader into the minutea which is of interest only to the professional historian. His discussion covers the noble and the base about this man, who is, unarguably, one of the most important persons in the history of the western and middle-eastern worlds.
Bob

Alexander The Great is one of world history's great characters, a bold leader who changed the history of civilization and has transcended culture and language like few world figures. And so it is not surprising that there are so many biographies written about the guy. Paul Cartledge here, like so many recent historians, tries to go for the gold by giving us a "new" interpretation of the events and character surrounding Alexander's life. That is not to say that his book is trash, it's actually very well-written and detailed. Cartledge's use of words and descriptions shows that he's enthusiastic about the subject and there are fascinating passages detailing the culture and state of the world during Alexander's times. We get vivid glimpses into how the Persians lived (there are some especially enticing details about the preparation of the Great King Darius' concubines). It's a good effort, but Cartledge doesn't present anything that has already been better documented by authors like Mary Renault who's "The Nature Of Alexander" is one of the great Alexander biographies, and of course no one has surpassed Robin Lane Fox's own work. One of the curious flaws of "Alexander The Great" is that it takes the same route as the recent book "Alexander Of Macedon," though not in the same spirit. While "Alexander Of Macedon" makes the blunder of trying to judge Alexander by today's standards (which is ludicrous considering the world, I would assume, was pretty different more than 2,000 years ago), Cartledge tries to keep the heroic figure of Alexander alive but stripped of the human aspects of the story. The portrait we get is of a brilliant man, visionary and military leader with not much heart. Heart in the sense of, well, we get a cardboard cut-out here. Cartledge is quick to discard the personality of Queen Olympias as being a ferverent Dionysian cult member, claiming the records aren't sufficient (or reliable), but this would also mean Cartledge cannot throw away these aspects of Alexander's life because they are not proven or disproven. The same goes for Alexander's marriage to Roxane, which Cartledge discards as JUST a political marriage and nothing more. Obviously none of us were alive during these events and so I guess Cartledge has his points, but notice how he does however accept as fact homosexual relationships between Alexander and certain characters like Hephaiston and Bagoas, and while there is little doubt that Alexander did indeed have intimate relations with members of the same sex (sexual culture was of course very different back then), Cartledge would also have to be handicapped here by the "lack of reliable sources." "Alexander The Great" is a good book in many aspects, but by stripping away all the humanity and emotion from the story of Alexander is to simplify his history and the history of the world. It also feels like just another avenue to try and present something "new" on a subject that has been tirelessly investigated and written about. At the end of the day it's a good read, but it's been done, and better.

From reading this book, I have to say that this book is a pretty good material about Alexander, the world that he lived in, his personal beliefs, how he interacted with diffrent peoples(depending on one's view of him) and how he is remembered today(again, depending on one's view of him).

This is a even-handed book, which details the all the things that people have debated about Alexander over the 2 millenia since his time and the research done on this book is excellent.

I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know all these points concerning Alexander The Great.