Customer Reviews

Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography

5 star:		(61)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Only occasionally have I read a work of history that's in the "can't put down" category. DISTANT MIRROR by Barbara Tuchman, MEN TO MATCH MY MOUNTAINS by Irving Stone, and Shelby Foote's monumental Civil War trilogy come to mind. ALEXANDER OF MACEDON, 356-323 B.C. by Peter Green is now another.

This material first appeared as ALEXANDER THE GREAT in 1970. This particular volume, a revision and expansion of that earlier book, is the second reprint (1991) of the title first published in 1974.

For the sake of background, the author necessarily begins his masterpiece with Alexander's father, Philip of Macedon, whose achievement was to unify Macedonia and coerce the Greek states to the south to join with him in an Hellenic League. But, after Philip is assassinated on page 105, it's all Alexander as he marches his army on a peripatetic route of conquest against the Persian Empire throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East as far as present-day West Pakistan - and then back again. Twenty-five thousand miles - the circumference of the Earth - in eleven years. I kept turning the pages to see what he was going to do next.

In his "Preface to the 1991 Reprint", Green makes it clear that his study of Alexander is a work in progress, and that even this book needs further revision in the light of new information. However, as flawed as the author may consider his ALEXANDER OF MACEDON to be, his masterful distillation of 17 pages worth of ancient and modern sources makes the narrative of Alexander's life sing. Green's prose is crisp and touched with a dry humor, and it never bogs down.

Though Green concludes that Alexander is "perhaps ... the most incomparable general the world has ever seen", he doesn't spare his subject from charges of megalomania and tyranny. But, in a man who never lost a battle and was proclaimed first the son of a god, and then himself a deity, can this be so surprising? Alexander is, in a sense, a tragic figure - one who couldn't see the wisdom in the statement of his subordinate commander, Coenus:

"Sir, if there is one thing above all others a successful man should know, it is when to stop."

ALEXANDER OF MACEDON is replete with a Table of Dates, fourteen maps and battle plans, and a 24-page appendix examining in detail the poorly documented battle on the River Granicus, Alexander's first victory in Asia against the Persian king Darius III.

My only complaint regarding this riveting historical piece is that the author didn't summarize the chaotic dissolution that overtook Alexander's empire immediately after his death. The contrast would have made me appreciate Alexander's achievement all that much more.

This is a truly excellent biography of a near-mythical figure. First of all, this book provides a thorough review of the known history of Alexander the Great - I have no idea how someone could consider this book "fictional," as one reviewer did. What's most impressive is how Green insists on treating Alexander as a human being. An exceptional person, but still a person, motivated by human passions and concerns. Most ancient history treats its subjects like the stone statues seen in museums. But we can't forget that there were people behind the marble, and they acted like, well, people. Alexander may have considered himself chosen by the gods - and by the end, even divine himself - but Green isn't buying it. At every turn, Green insists on interpreting Alexander's actions just as he might interpret a leader's actions today. Green weighs the poltical, military, family and psychological factors that affected Alexander's decisions, and leaves divine will out of it. Some readers may be put off by Green's demythologizing. I think that Green revitalizes Alexander by restoring humanity to his myth.

I grew up in the age of an idealized Alexander. First was the Robert Rossen film starring Richard Burton. It was 46 years ago, and though I dont remember much detail I do remember Alexander cutting through the Gordian Knot, his affection for the warhorse Bucephalus, and the deaths of Hephaestion, and Alexander  his soldiers walking past his death bed. I was struck by Alexanders loyalty, and his emotional depth. Next came a voracious reading (and later re-readings) of Mary Renaults romantic trilogy. The brave son, the bold warrior, the loyal friend  founder of cities, lover of women and men, etc., etc; heady stuff for a boy entering adolescence. And though my intellectual interest in Alexander waned, his life as reflected in those works marked me.

Not too long ago I read The Soul of Battle by Victor David Hanson and came to learn that not everyone held Alexander in the same esteem. I think Hanson may have even called him a butcher. It finally dawned on me, of course, world conquest is not an act of loving kindness. A man could not be responsible for that much death and destruction and not be a brute. I figured I had to read something other than fiction to get a more accurate accounting of my boyhood hero.

The Amazon.com site ran a review of Alexander of Macedon that caught my eye with the claim that Peter Greens biography was one of the finest. I was immediately pleased with the title, Alexander of Macedon rather than the expected, Alexander the Great. The book is not a difficult read, in fact, for history its often quite breezy. The Alexander portrayed is no less a wonder than I always thought, but much more a human. Alexanders greatness, according to Mr. Green, was somewhat erratic, as he could be both great and petty but not in equal measures. The pleasures of slaughter, rape, and plunder were much closer to Alexanders soul than the pleasures of the palace, or the intellectual pleasure of bantering with philosophers. Alexander was an intriguer from childhood, with as great a genius for self-promotion and manipulation as for war; and as great a thirst for alcohol as conquest.

Mr. Green has obviously plumbed the sources. His book opens the worlds of Macedonia, Greece, and Persia. He gives us a supporting cast equal to the times, and, finally, Mr. Green gives us a life, as short as it may have been. Alexander died at 33, and his empire went quickly into collapse.

Green's work on Alexander, begins with the legends about his conception, the family and culture he was born into, his early education (I learned alot here about how small the Greek world was in relation to the great minds of the era), his rise to power, the intrigue, and ultimately the military genius of such a young man.

Green does an excellent job of explaining what is known as fact, what is conjecture and what the competing opinions are. He takes historical data, legends and myths and weaves them into a comprehensive study of a historical Alexander who at times was bigger than even his legends and at times was much smaller. Green provides enough information to comprehend the world in which Alexander lived, which makes understanding the man easier.

It is truly amazing to read about these events so long ago in such a refreshing style. It amazed me at times how much Alexander's campaigns sounded like accounts of the U.S. Civil war or other "recent" military events. Alexander and Green's masterful study of the man are both GREAT!

This book is absolutely brilliant--one of the best I've everread on any topic. If this were Siskel and Ebert, it would rate twothumbs, up, way up! To be sure, things get off to a slow start, as the author lays out the setting, introduces a large cast of characters, some of whom had the same name, so it was hard to keep up at times. But after the first several dozen pages, the story just takes off and you can't put the book down. The author does a superb job of putting you right there--I really felt like I was along for the ride clear across Asia to India and back again. But what clearly distinguishes this work is Green's dissection of Alexander. He refutes the traditional description of Alexander as an elightened civilizing force spreading Western culture. It turns out the enemy Persian Empire was a sophisticated, enlightened establishement in its own right--so much so that Greeks in Asia Minor decline to join Alexander's crusade--they've got it good under the Persians. Alexander himself is a ruthless megalomaniac who stamps out anyone he thinks is standing in his way. That said, Green judges him the greatest military commander in history and provides the goods to prove, i.e. wins under every consceivable circumstance. The descriptions of the major operations and battles--Tyre, Issis, Arbela, etc.--are first rate. I also liked the way Green wove in modernist terms (the artillery, the propaganda section, etc.) to show that certain principles and concepts are timeless. In short, this is an absolutely brilliant historical biography. Two thumbs up, way up!

In the University I was a math major, but I have always been interested in history, and more particularly in ancient Greek and Roman history. The perspective I bring to this book is not one of expertise, but rather of enthusiastic interest. Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon" was one of the more enjoyable biographies that I have ever read because it was not only well written, but passionately written. I have read other books, and heard other interpretations of events than those which Green gave, but for the most part I was persuaded to believe his version by his realism and his inspired sense of reality and probability. Some scholars such as Tarn have presented an Alexander as a figure of hero worship; Tarn's Alexander does very little wrong, and garners great praise for his prowess. Green's Alexander is more a man that we can recognize; he is a man driven by a will to ever be the best, driven by a lust for power, and driven by a strong belief in his own superiority. Green does not pass idle judgement on Alexander, for how can a man be so judged who lived in such different times, and who we know only through sources written hundreds of years after his death. We can and Green does, however, make many strong inferences regarding not only the character of Alexander, but his means, motivations, and intentions.
Green's prose is eminently palatable, and was not stiff or dry at all. For somebody who knows little about Ancient Macedonia or Greece, this book is strong in that it does not presuppose knowledge. Green's tone is neither condescendingly scholarly nor unabashedly folksy, but one of an intelligent person ardently interested in his subject and eager to communicate it to the reader be he or she expert or layperson. If you are more interested in Alexander's generalship, then Green's book does not provide the fullest account, though he understands what took place at the main battles of the Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela (Arbela), and against Porus. For Alexander's generalship read J. F. C. Fuller's book "The Generalship of Alexander the Great," though you will notice an important difference between what Green and Fuller say about what happened at the Granicus (I tend to lean towards Green's view on this one).
By those who find Alexander fascinating, and who want to gain a greater understanding of how his myth came to be, this book should definitely be read. It deserves five stars.

It has been thirty years since Peter Green wrote his masterful biography of Alexander the Great. I first read this great book when I was in 9th Grade doing a report on Alexander. Years later I am still captivated by the thoroughness and detail that Green gives to Alexander.

What makes this book great is not just the immense amount of information that Green has presented. Professor Green whisks the reader away to the time of Philip and Alexander, and gives a excellent portrayal of the friction between Greece and Macedon at the time, until King Philip took power and set the stage for Alexander's conquests.

This book also contains an amazing number of characters. From Aristotle to Parmenio, Green throws in the players who shaped Alexander's life. The only problem with this is that many of the characters have the same name, and it was hard for me to sort out the names.

Green's biography almost reads like a novel, and is full of action and romance. Peter Green has written the best biography of Alexander. Hopefully, this fine book will be the definitive biography of the young man who conquered two million miles of territory and brought Greece, Persia, and India together.

Mr. Green is possibly the best historian among novelists and the best novelist among historians. His book is very reader friendly by making the dry history events into coherent polished stories. But making stories is not the job of a historian but a novelist.

Mr. Green portrayed a very dark Alexander the Great. It is not that Alexander cannot be debated or criticized. It is that the history should not be distorted. In the book, we see too much Mr. Green's personal allegations and judgments. Mr. Green, in the book, played the jury, the prosecutor and the judge in the court that he set to try Alexander. This is how the court looks like: If Alexander did not do things up to the standards of our time, that is due to Alexander's character; if he did do then it was for propaganda.

Green quoted Arrian and other reliable historians to support his claims, while these quotes, by the original authors, lead to completely different conclusions from Green's. Readers should read Arrian's and others to balance the biased view of Mr. Green's.

Mr. Green even went so far to welcome those that he himself admitted untrustworthy sources as `plausible' repeatedly when he needed them to support his claims. I found Green's methods were disturbing. It is not, I repeat, that Alexander cannot be criticized; it is that the history should not be written like a novel with little respect to facts. The following are some of the key items where Green failed as a historian:

1) Green failed to address the situation before Alexander's expedition and the results and effects after. He ignored the historical results of Alexander's achievements. He claimed that the reason for the expedition was that Macedon badly needed money and that was all. Green concluded that the financial difficulty and the profit were the only reasons for the expedition. It is quite absurd since even an ordinary person will not live his life for the only purpose of profit. Ironically, it is much safer to say that Green's innovation of the history is certainly more profitable and more profit oriented.

2) Green failed to make any proper reference of Alexander to other historical figures. Who in history did better than Alexander? Until today we still cannot find any one who is remotely comparable to Alexander in politics, military and contribution to human civilization. If Green reserved such harsh judgment for Alexander, what would he comment on the figure of 1500 years after, Genghis Khan, who did nothing more than destruction in Asia and Europe. Ginghis Khan's work was indeed destruction and his empire left nothing but destruction. Alexander was completely different. His respect to science and knowledge made him uniquely outstanding in the history. In politics and military alone, even Julian Caesar, Napoleon did not come close. If one refers the politicians of our own time, which one is more sincere than Alexander on any issue being criticized by Green? Green did not make any horizontal comparison (at Alexander's time with other figures) or vertical comparison (with other figures at different eras). This would be a fatal ignorance by any historian.

3) If a historical figure should be judged by Green's way, every one of them would be convicted in today's court. Green used the saying in Animal Farm to ridicule Alexander's so-called `brotherhood of mankind'. How sincere Alexander on this issue is not an issue. It could be a slogan, a mean for his political purpose as well as genuine as other historians concluded. But when we see the results that Alexander left behind him, an empire that covered Europe, Asia and Africa that produced so many great scholars and the knowledge that still is taught in our time and inspired great scientists since, should we give some credits to Alexander's means and achievements? But Green, claiming every nation and culture is equal, on the other hand he is so sure that his time and his theories are so superior (or `more equal' as he ridiculed Alexander) to others that he can use them to judge a figure living in 2300 years ago. There has been a movement of political correctness claiming every culture is equal. However, we have to realize that Greek culture was far more superior to the others. It is the only culture that created science and democracy. After Alexander, Greek culture entered another golden era.

4) Green's book is reinventing history and jumping to conclusions: Green tried to make things favor his theory when there is a clue or even there is no clue. The battle of River Granicus did not weigh much in the career of Alexander, but since the records about it had some vacancies and inconsistencies, Green jumped to it to dig out something that was not there to conclude that Alexander lost a battle over there and lied to the world. He ignored the records by reliable sources and made his assumption sound as what really happened there with vague sentences in the book and then in the Appendix he made more theories to justify his assumption. However at the end of the Appendix, after all claims that he made, he said maybe the issue (The battle of River Granicus) is indeed `insoluble'. I saw an irresponsible gossiper who made many rumors and at the end, afraid of being liable for the rumors, he said `after all I did not say anything or at least I did not mean what I said'. Such attitude and action can hardly lead to anywhere but failure. In his `Preface to the 1991 Reprint', Green had to admit that his theory, according to the more recent researches by the others, was `flat wrong'.

5) Green claimed that Alexander left behind him destructions and at the moment he was gone his empire collapsed. It is completely wrong. Green should remember that after Alexander, the center of academy and science moved from Athens to Alexandria, a city founded by him. Alexandria continued to be the leading role of the most magnificent civilization, Ancient Greek civilization, for over 7 centuries until it fell to Muslim's hand. The burning of the books in the library of Alexandria, by Muslims who occupied Alexandria, made the bathhouses in Alexandria need no other fuel for 6 months. For the above facts, I don't know how Green could claim that Alexander's legacy was destruction and his empire was gone when he was gone. Green at the same time also claimed that only after 300 years after Alexander's death the memoirs about Alexander started to appear because Alexander's propaganda machine would not have allowed them to be published until then. A `collapsed' empire controlled the publication for 300 years? I don't know how Green can put these two claims simultaneously. One of them must be wrong and probably both.

Mr. Green spent almost a chapter to denounce Alexander at the end of the book in the fashion of human right tribunal of our time. History is not the business of fashion, which should not be styled to suit our time or our political purposes. I know it is difficult to put a person's passion and political views aside when he is dealing with history. But at least he, as a historian, can respect the facts and base his arguments on them rather than his passion and purposes. Green failed in all such accounts. Green could be a better fashion designer than a historian, but, even so, the best cloth that he could ever produce would probably be `the emperor's new cloth'. You should feel happy since Green, after all, is not your accountant.

I still gave the book 2 stars while the lowest is 1 for that Green is the best example of what a historian should NOT be. For this sense, 2 stars for the book is fair.

As if conquering the known world sources weren't enough to accomplish, Green's masterpiece dually succeeds in its ability to personify one of history's greatest conquerors with candor and exacting detail.

"Alexander of Macedon" is a fitting book for both aficionados of classic Greek antiquity and the layman alike, providing thorough detail that is eloquently written so armchair adventurers will take great delight in reading this work. Green complies multiple maps and used nearly 100 pages (that's right, a hundred PAGES) of sources to construct the rise, conquest, and fall of Alexander the Great.

Starting during the reign of Philip II, with anecdotes dating earlier still, this biography establishes the foundation on which Alexander solidified his empire, subdued mainland Greece prior to setting out for Asia, and recounts with great alacrity the battles Alexander won on the road to conquering Darius III's vast empire.

Brilliant--5 Stars!

Many books exist about Alexander the Great. However, most of them are written with very vague or unreliable sources. Unfortunately, the oldest works we have are from the Romans. And even they took their sources in previous centuries.
Still, Peter Green (like all his other books) made a wonderful job compiling the information that can be found. He managed to stay focussed on this subject, without falling into the "Alexander was the worst nightmare" or "Alexander was a godlike hero" archetypes. In addition, this book covers quite eloquently his youth and family background.
Af for his military campaigns, this book is good (especially for novices). I myself like Theodore Dodge's very detailed descriptions.
Anyways... If you want to read lots of books on Alexander the Great (like I did), start with this one!