Customer Reviews

Envy of the Gods: Alexander the Great's Ill-Fated Journey Across Asia

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

 

 

I learned a great deal from this book, but the first half seemed to have a lot of repetition in it. It is not a light read, but it is well researched. Alexander does not come off as much of a sympathetic figure, so when he dies there is not much of a sense that the world had lost a great man -- maybe in his exploits, but that is about it.

If you are expecting a fascinating biography of this man, you may want to look elsewhere.

The author seems to have a strong agenda-- he harps on every failure of Alexander, invents a few more, and skips entirely over anything that could be seen as a victory or positive step. I'm no expert, but some of his information even seems pretty flawed; for example, if you flip over to the glossary section and look up Hephaestion, the entry reads, "Alexander's close friend and lover. Died of gluttony and alcoholism 324 b.c." This is the only mention of this I've ever heard, and unless you're morbidly obese, it's pretty hard to die of gluttony. In the text, the author doesn't give any evidence for his supposed gluttony or supposed alcoholism-- he only states the well-known information that Hephaestion was ill, he ate and drank, and then he died.

I read this book immediately after reading "The Nature of Alexander," by Renault. I admit that Renault has an idolatry for the man (she seems about ready to believe that Zeus was his father), but Prevas goes way over the other border of good scholarship. The text is full of statements like, "Alexander was fair [of complexion] with a temperament that was often a volatile mixture of self-centered adolescent exuberance and feminine hysteria." I learned some things from this book, but mostly I was too irritated by Prevas' derisiveness to really glean much information.

I was looking forward to this book to help shed some new light and ideas into the last few years of Alexander's short life but after reading it I was still very much in the dark. I enjoyed Prevas's book on Hannibal so I was expecting the same in this book. I was wrong. His story seemed to be a bit stretched and I think it could have been much shorter than as printed. Reliable sources for the life/times of Alexander are few and far between and one must read a variety of the texts that survive to get any form of picture into his life. Judgements made today on a king that seized a huge chunk of the known world over 2300 years ago are speculative at best, especially when they bring up possible psychological faults that have only been discovered in the past 100 years. It seems that a very pessimistic view of Alexander the Great has become popular today- a politically correct way of seeing the Ancient World. . Revisionists can/will try to topple the great depending on which way the winds of morality are blowing, even if incorrect. Prevas had some interesting facts in his book about Alexander's jouney into the East but I sensed an "Anti-Macedonian" sentiment after the first few pages that carried through the whole book. It seemed almost judgemental and negative towards the West ie. America. So Alexander was possibly and alcoholic, an unstable character that grew darker and more evil with age, a bad person. What does it matter? Alexander is long dead and his real inner self/motivations/faults are lost forever. Accept him for what he was- a fascinating historical figure that did more in his time than anyone has ever accomplished. This book will be going to the used book store instead of making into my ever growing library of Antiquity.

In "Envy of the Gods", John Prevas picks up the story of Alexander the Great with the fall of Persepolis in the spring of 330 B.C.E. and covers it for the final seven years of Alexander's life. It is clear that the author views this period as fall of Alexander. He covers the subject in great detail; bringing a new perspective to the greatest conqueror of the ancient world.

As is pointed out in the introduction, the way Alexander is viewed in the West is in many ways a polar opposite as to how he is seen in the East. In the West, he is viewed as a hero; the man who finally destroyed the Persian Empire, forever removing the threat to Europe. In the East, though, Alexander is a man who slaughtered and enslaved men women and children, and destroyed great cities. Mr. Prevas goes so far as to compare his effect on the East to that which Genghis Khan had on the West.

John Prevas covers in great detail the atrocities of Alexander, and his movement away from Greek and Macedonian traditions as he adopts more and more traditions from Persia and the East. He does a good job of trying to get into the mind of Alexander and his followers to understand their motivations as their outlooks diverged more and more as the army moved East. He also does a good job of bringing together the histories of Curtius, Arrian, and Plutarch to discuss and reconcile (if possible) their differences.

What is missing from this book is the early history of Alexander, which would really help the reader compare and contrast the changes between his rise and fall. Mr. Prevas does occasionally pull an example from earlier in his life, but that is not nearly as effective as a full telling of Alexander's life would be. Since the main text of this book runs only 210 pages, there is certainly room for a more full account of his life.

Overall, this is a very good and detailed account of the last seven years of Alexander's life. The narration could be improved, but it is certainly not unreadable. Also, the book forces the reader to use other resources to cover the rest of Alexander's life in order to get the most out of it. Still, this is a valuable source for the period which it does cover.

I was looking for a light history read on this era and I found it. I also learned that even I could write a book. Much of "Envy of the Gods" is repetetive and I kept getting the feeling that the author was trying to stretch 50 pages of information into 200 pages of text. This was unfortunate, as the extensive references suggest that there was a lot more useful information to be had.

Before reading this book I was hoping to find a fresh take on the life of Alexander the Great and in this pursuit I was not disappointed. The style, however, made trudging through this book one of the most frustrating reading experiences I have had. Many things are unnecessarily repeated and I found myself saying, "just get on with it already." This book contained some good content but it was stretched far beyond what it was capable of. Overall, there are some fresh ideas presented but they are rarely backed up with historical evidence. This is probably not the book you are hoping for.

I have read well over two-dozen books about Alexander and they cover the gamut from shameless idolatry to bias-ridden and agenda-driven negativity. This book definitely sits in the latter category. There are some good books that saddle somewhere in between the two extremes but they may not be as thoroughly researched or written very well. Understanding Alexander takes a lot of work because he is so often colored by the opinions (both positive and negative) of individuals (other human beings) who are often driven to shape the image of Alexander as they see fit for whatever reasons that we sometimes cannot fathom.

This is a well written book and thoroughly researched, but it is far too easy for an author/scholar to take some accounts of what happened (or supposedly happened) and extrapolate them into a story that's unremittingly dark and negative about the subject matter, in this case - Alexander. It's kind of funny to read some of these historians sit on some moral high horse they erect for themselves and attempt to apply the morals of this age to those of some 2300 years ago. It sometimes makes me wonder what they find so threatening about Alexander in their own lives and ideals. Is Alexander some sort of a spirit that haunts their lives? Does he represent the type of a leader and human being that they wish they could be but never can or will? The bias that these authors exhibit automatically diminishes the scholarly research and thoughts that goes into their writings. We are reading the prejudice of one man who happens to research history for his livelihood and who desperately wants to leave a mark with a viewpoint that, hopefully, will last the test of time.

The truth about Alexander is that he is one of the most important figures in world history and will remain so as long as the human race survives. He'll be written about and debated over like this for many millennia to come (assuming we haven't nuked ourselves into annihilation) and I suppose that fact can rub some historians and others the wrong way. What Alexander achieved and the effects of his achievements cannot be overestimated. There is a real cause-and-effect remnant of Alexander's legacy that lasts to this very day. He paved the eastern front for the emerging Roman Empire and the eventual spread of Christianity. This is simply the flow of history on a macro scale. People can choose to ignore this fact all they want, but that is indeed what happened.

There is no doubt that Alexander committed mistakes and atrocities during his unprecedented epic campaign, but I'd really like to ask some of these revisionist historians: What would YOU have done if you were in his shoes? Can you even imagine what it'd be like to have that kind of power, ability, and resources at that point in history? I'd really like to see some of these historians dedicate a chapter to what THEY would have done. What would YOU do if you're constantly under the threat of assassination and that there are those who would gladly kill you, take over your power and kill off your family for good measure?

During this ancient era, massacre and enslavement of the vanquished was a given. Heck, we've had much worse cases of genocide and atrocities on a massive scale in the past century - some 2200 years after Alexander. Compare Alexander to the likes of some of the worst dictator-thugs of the 20th century: Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol-Pot, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Hussein, Ceaucescu, Miloslevic, Idi Amin, the WWII Japanese imperialists, and countless other lesser known mass murderers spread out over all corners of the world.

Alexander had more absolute power over the world than ANY of these dictators. Alexander certainly had the power to kill far more of the people he conquered. But he didn't. He adopted their customs, dress, and culture. He was, at times, extremely generous to those he conquered - King Porus of India is a shining example. Alexander even extended the territories of Porus after the decisive battle of Hydaspes. How many examples like these are there in the annals of history? Let's compare Alexander to Genghis Khan or Tamerlane, two great Asian conquerors who came around some 1500 years after Alexander. They plundered, raped and mass murdered on a scale that absolutely dwarfs what Alexander did. Also, Alexander outlawed rape.

I read this book with a grain of salt and I would certainly recommend the same to others, but the author's pointed bias and his determination to be vitriolic towards Alexander before he even conceived of the ideas for this book are readily apparent. It's more of an interesting psychoanalysis of the author himself than of Alexander because it simply isn't possible to get a clear overall picture of a figure that existed 2300 years ago and the sources are scattered and at times unreliable. And perhaps this is why Alexander remains such a fascinating figure to this very day and will continue to be so long after we're all gone.

And in John Prevas' reckoning, a wake it was--a wake of absolute tyranny, murder, and destruction that fanned out behind Alexander the Great to leave lasting bitterness in central Asia even two millennia and more later. Well...I have to say that Prevas seems less than impressed by the legacy of Alexander, unwowed if you will by the great Macedonian's brilliant conquests. Prevas goes after Alexander with both a scalpel and an axe, excising and dismembering Alexander's legacy with no regard for the more benevolent interpretations of others. If you are a deep admirer of Alexander, stop here: do not cross the Hellespont--do not go on.

I have been an admirer of Alexander the Great; my readings on the subject have emphasized the brilliance of his tactics, the wisdom of his rule for allowing the conquered to maintain their cultures and traditions. I have been awed by his determination and his ingenuity. As for the bad things, the massacres, the madness, the murders of Cleitus and Parmenio...these were easier to ascribe to the stresses of war--could've happened to anyone in similar circumstances; best to just hold on to the good aspects and overlook the others.

But Prevas isn't fooled by this hero worship. He writes a very different profile of the great conqueror, one in which even Alexander's military successes come into question. One cannot write off Prevas as a "revisionist". His primary sources are identical to those of every other Alexander historian for the past two thousand years, and Alexander is shown to have gone a little (or a lot) crazy in almost every one of these sources. If one simply strips away some benevolent desire on Alexander's part to unify the world for the betterment of mankind, then baser (and much darker) motivations begin to seep through at every point during the journey.

Prevas' interpretation is disturbing, but I am very glad I read it because I believe that Prevas is correct, which doesn't mean that I cannot continue to be fascinated by Alexander's life or the high points of his career. In making his case, though, Prevas seems to lose his detachment, as if his antipathy toward Alexander is personal (and through the competitive world of academia, perhaps it is). Since Prevas traveled to the region, he had an opportunity to write his recollections into the text. He gives us very little of the travelogue, though, which could have made the text more of an experience rather than a crusade. This book does not read with the fluidity and enthusiasm of "Hannibal Crosses the Alps", which is too bad because that book was excellent. Nevertheless, this was still a valuable read and Xenophone is next.

This book is not a historical narrative of the last seven years of Alexander's life; it is a highly selective argument, the purpose of which is clearly to demonstrate Lord Acton's dictum that power corrupts--and that no one was more absolutely powerful or more absolutely corrupt than Alexander. To be sure, Alexander comes across badly enough (by most modern, Western standards) in any well researched, balanced and fair assessment; but for Prevas, being fair apparently means accepting all the ancient sources as equally credible--and then favoring those narratives that best support his viewpoint. This is evident, for example, in his extensive and uncritical use of Curtius Rufus, a Roman historian writing centuries after Alexander and with his own polemical ax to grind in his description of the Macedonian. It is obvious also in the amount of space Prevas devotes to the various episodes, including the sack of Persepolis and the conspiracies involving Philotas and Callisthenes.

Prevas is best in relating his personal observations from traversing the country Alexander passed through, and this gives the book some merit. Better maps and a diagram of Persepolis to complement his narrative description would have been welcome improvements.

On the other hand, his writing is repetitive, as has been noted in other reviews, and also clumsy in places: for example, "they had eaten and drank together (p 101)" and "he was equally as eager to show his loyalty" (p 104).

Overall, this book falls far short of passing scholarly muster. Prevas is clearly familiar with the ancient sources and some (how much?) modern scholarship, but he does not show the critical judgment with respect to them that would inspire confidence in his interpretation. This book is essentially no better than the testimony of a witness for the prosecution, and should be read accordingly. But if you choose to read only one book on Alexander, it should NOT be this one.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, there can be no better demonstration of it than the life of Alexander the Great. Oliver Stone's recent, and failed, film has brought even more attention to the conqueror, who from his lifetime down has been a constant source for academic and archeological research, with supporters and detractors in his own time and into ours. He had a spectacular career, with a very high arc to success; the early part of that career is not the subject of _Envy of the Gods: Alexander the Great's Ill-Fated Journey Across Asia_ (Da Capo Press) by John Prevas. Prevas, an adventuresome classics professor, examines the years of Alexander's decline and fall. You won't find here his taming of the steed Bucephalus at thirteen, his solving of the Gordian Knot, his first war at age sixteen, his assumption of the Macedonian throne at age twenty after the assassination of his father, nor his spectacular conquests of Asia Minor, Egypt, and Babylon. Prevas has instead started his account from 330 BCE, when Alexander was twenty-six, pushing west into Asia and the Indian subcontinent, eventually retreating back to Babylon. It was a seven year circuit, marked by furious conquests, betrayals, orgies, and drunkenness, during which Alexander became increasingly suspicious and erratic. So, was he "Great"? One can't help admiring his degree of ambition, and how far he took it in his thirty-three years, and how well he achieved his aim of immortality. But with its concentration on Alexander's last seven years, Prevas's book can only inspire wonder that Alexander was able to last as long as he did.

By the time Alexander had reached the capital of the Persians, Persepolis, now in Iran, he had extracted the vengeance against the Persians that was his assignment from the Greeks. He might have said "Mission accomplished" and headed home a hero, but he had a consuming drive, a pathological compulsion, to push on to the limits of the Earth. The war had changed from Greece's revenge against Persia to Alexander's personal war for his own glory and deification. During the push west toward the Ganges, Alexander's ego found new ways of gratification. He liked the quasi-divine status Persian royalty held over the people, and he started doing things as they did, assuming a loftiness and remove from his men. He took hundreds of concubines and many eunuchs. Drinking and feasting became his standard way of life, and there are accounts here of drunken brawls within the royal chamber, and a drunken Alexander who alienated those closest to him. Promotions became based on sheer loyalty, loyalty that included acceptance of Alexander's divinity. He insisted on the strictest compliance with his orders, and refused to accept resistance; his men's exercise of free speech was curtailed, a tradition of free speech that was widely valued by the Greeks. Those who opposed him (or who he imagined opposed him) were subject to the sort of sadistic torture to death that the Greeks viewed as a particularly Persian atrocity.

It is astonishing that Alexander could have pushed his soldiers so far. He must have had spectacular rhetorical powers, and he never lost his physical courage, often unnecessarily putting himself at the advance of any fighting. He pushed eastward as far as what is now India, but could not push his men to the sea he sought. His troops finally were fed up with his personal wars, and natural forces like weather had sapped their interest in continuing. A sulking Alexander called for sacrifices and reading of entrails as omens; when the entrails forecast doom for further advancement, Alexander could save face by following the gods' will, not his men's demands, to begin the return trip, which held more brutal combat and a vicious passage through the desert. It may well be that he was deliberately inflicting injury on the army that had refused to continue on his eastward conquests. He reached Babylon again, only to die shortly after by (the speculations are vigorously argued) typhoid, virus, or poison. He was possibly the greatest conqueror in the world, but Prevas's spellbinding account shows little to admire. Remember that Dante placed Alexander in the seventh circle of Hell. This vivid picture of a brutal, drunken, and erratic dictator shows he deserved it, despite all his greatness in battle.