Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

This is an excellent book, although if possible I would have rated it at four and a half stars rather than five.
At least to this reader, the fifty years after the death of Alexander the Great's death are one of the most fascinating period in history, marked by out-sized personalities, innumerable battles, and a volatile diplomatic milieu, with the fate of kingdoms, empires, and their rulers continually see-sawing back and forth depending on the latest battle or diplomatic realignment.

Perhaps this period is so interesting because unlike in many periods of history, when one side or the other is often vastly outclassed by the other side, all of Alexander's successors had proven themselves as hard, competent, ambitious men, and during the decades of fighting after Alexander's death, all of them had the chance to prove themselves during their wild swings in fortune.

This author does an excellent job of describing this history, with my only criticism being that sometimes he seems to summarize too much. Another note--I can't call it is a criticism because it is my fault rather than the author's--is that I had a difficult time keeping straight who was fighting on who's' side...many of the players have the same or similar names as other players, and change sides often, so sometimes I was a bit confused....

In any event, a very readable account of one of my favorite periods of history.

This is an interesting book, covering a period in history that is seldom given its due. The book is well written and contains several useful maps, a good time line, a cast of characters and several genealogies. The book describes the 40-year period after the death of Alexander the Great and how several of his generals fought to gain control over his empire. It explains the evolution of the Antigonid, Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, with a very brief discussion of how they eventually fell. I would have liked a bit more than the few paragraphs that discussed how the Romans took over the Antigonid, and Ptolemaic kingdoms and much more about the fall of the Seleucid kingdom to the Romans and to a resurgent Persian Empire, as the book is almost completely silent on this subject. However, my rating does not take this into account, as the purpose of the book is only to discuss the 40-year period of the wars between the successors to Alexander the Great and not the later period when their kingdoms were eventually lost.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in history; especially those interested in the history Greece, and Alexander the Great.

Robin Waterfield's book covers an important slice of history - the 40 years of wars between the Sucessors of Alexander the Great after his death. It doesn't seem like this period has often received the detailed, book-length treatment that it deserves and thus Waterfield's book fills a need. There are both positive and negative aspects of his telling of this story of which I will begin with the negative.

The author clearly seems to have some level of disdain for Alexander the Great that I felt marred the early chapters of the book. He took several potshots at Alexander throughout his work that I found distracting and off-putting especially when I was first beginning to read through the book. Without citing specific examples, he calls Alexander "megalomaniacal" (Kindle Location 195) and "bloodthirsty" (L. 226). He believes that Alexander was not genuine in his motives or beliefs, especially as regards his view of his own divinity, which the author explains away as Alexander allowing his "power to go to his head." (L. 301) He also refers to Alexander's empire in quotation marks ("empire") as if it is not worthy to be called such. The last example I will give in this regard is the author's reference to Alexander's attack on Gaza and killing of the commander there as an "atrocity repellent even by his (Alexander's) standards." (L. 2129) The author fails to mention that this very commander in Gaza (named Battis) had just tried and almost succeeded in assassinating Alexander before the fighting even began! It is certainly a worthy topic of discussion to ask if Alexander's decisions were necessary and right within the context of his time, but that discussion is better reserved for a biography on Alexander. In any case, I would prefer the author remain objective and unbiased instead of allowing his personal feelings to intrude in this manner. For another perspective, Thomas R. Martin and Christopher Blackwell have written a very good and concise biography on Alexander that examines him based on his own beliefs and upbringing and in the context of his own time. (Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient Life)

The other area where I believe the book falls somewhat short is in its organization. The book is, primarily, a political and military narrative of events from the death of Alexander (323 B.C.) until the stabilization of the successor kingdoms c. 279 B.C. Often, throughout this narrative, the author intersperses sections on the culture of the Hellenistic period. At least for me, I found that these sections, while containing quality information, distracted from the narrative. At certain points the narrative will turn into a quick aside about various topics (individualism in the Hellenistic period, Athenian Higher Education, etc.) that then becomes a short essay and leaves you wondering what happened to the narrative. I would have preferred that the author divide the work into two sections placing the narrative first and the brief cultural survey afterwards.

Now, for the positives. As referred to earlier, this is certainly an important book. It does not appear that there are many other options out there which cover this period of the Successors in its entirety or at this level of detail. As such, we are indebted to the author for expanding our knowledge on this critical period which saw the development of a new society. James Romm's "Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire" would also be worth looking into as it covers the same subject matter, but it apparently ends only halfway through the period covered by Waterfield's book. Other histories of the Hellenistic era focus on the cultural and technological advancements while quickly glossing over the complicated political storyline and thus this book fills a niche.

Aside from the subject matter, the book is, indeed, well written. It is a quick read, not bogged down by overly dry language. The story itself is dramatic and the author lets the history speak for itself. The various generals vying for power, their machinations, the alliances, the unexpected deaths in battle or by assassination make for thrilling reading. Waterfield does a tremendous job of organizing all of this information so that the reader does not get lost. It is fairly easy to follow the narrative and keep straight who is who. The author includes a "Cast of Characters" for those who need help telling apart the various Alexanders or Philips. There is also a helpful timeline and a handful of maps to show the boundaries of the various Successor Kingdoms as they begin to take (and then change) shape.

Overall, this book is certainly worth reading but I would recommend the reader have a clear picture of the life of Alexander before reading and also that they supplement this work with another history of the Hellenistic period which gives greater detail on the culture of the times, such as Michael Grant's "From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World."