Alexander the Great and His Time

Rating:
Summary: Author Infatuated with Alexander
Review: Good book, but in places reads like a verbal apotheosis of the great general. The author minimizes and rationalizes certain mistakes and brutalities by citing similar deeds of Caesar and Napoleon. Many of his quirks are left out altogether. Learned much from this book, but would have gotten more from an objective version.

Rating:
Summary: A sloppy love letter to Alexander
Review: It's telling when the front notes to a work put you off. In the preface to the 2nd edition, the preface to the 1st edition, and later in the Introduction, Savill makes reference to the "disturbed modern world", which leads one to the sneaking suspicion that she is inclined to romanticize Alexander and his times. This suspicion is later confirmed when she laments that today's soldiers are denied the "exhilaration" of combat that soldiers of antiquity were able to enjoy. (There is little doubt that Alexander himself found combat exhilarating, but I fear Savill has little appreciation for the experience of war for the average soldier.)

I didn't give Savill's history the minimum rating because she does cover the primary events of Alexander's short career clearly and with charming prose. Her interpretation is profoundly untrustworthy, however: every criticism of Alexander stems from the sniping of obvious inferiors, every salacious story traced to untrustworthy sources, every negative act ascribed to the fault of the victim or to the pressures of leadership. This hagiography left me in the curious position of feeling that I had to defend Alexander against the embarrassing attentions of his own biographer.

Indeed, I feel I learned more about Agnes Savill from this work than I did about Alexander of Macedonia. Here is my mental picture of Savill: Agnes Savill, spinster, amateur historian, a product of the Victorian era and a romantic adherent to its goal of spreading civilization to every corner of the known world, uncomfortable with sex (she counts it as a virtue that Alexander had little interest in the pleasures of the flesh) but attracted to the image of a cultured man of war, disdainful of the modern world, blinkered. My picture probably bears no relation with reality but perhaps conveys the tone of Savill's biography.

Rating:
Summary: Pro Alexander but needing some help
Review: Position: Agnes Savill's definitely in the Alexanderophile camp, and she goes out of her way to cite reasons for the negative press that came after his passing. In most cases she cites her sources, but in a couple of instances her pro-Alexander feelings come through. For example, she justifies Alexander's quick temper as he gets older by saying that anyone would feel the same after traveling so far and feeling the yoke of responsibility.

Writing: Savill does a good job of weaving the story when sticking to action, but she does jump around a bit. For example, she places several of the conspiracies and subsequent executions in one chapter, out of chronological order. Not a major distraction, but could have been worked into the main story.

Maps: Needs better maps. There is only one at the beginning tracing the entire 21,000 mile journey of Alexander and his army. At least two are required. Only a couple of military position maps showing unit arrangements prior to major battles.

Overall a good read, with solid support. She dismisses several of the negative accounts by saying that any person in leadership is bound to have scurilous tales told about them after they die, and that Alexander's successor prohibited the publishing of any positive stories about Alexander for many years. I would recommend this book for a quicker read than Arrianus' 430 page account, but it certainly does not have the depth.

Rating:
Summary: Pro Alexander but needing some help
Review: Position: Agnes Savill's definitely in the Alexanderophile camp, and she goes out of her way to cite reasons for the negative press that came after his passing. In most cases she cites her sources, but in a couple of instances her pro-Alexander feelings come through. For example, she justifies Alexander's quick temper as he gets older by saying that anyone would feel the same after traveling so far and feeling the yoke of responsibility.

Writing: Savill does a good job of weaving the story when sticking to action, but she does jump around a bit. For example, she places several of the conspiracies and subsequent executions in one chapter, out of chronological order. Not a major distraction, but could have been worked into the main story.

Maps: Needs better maps. There is only one at the beginning tracing the entire 21,000 mile journey of Alexander and his army. At least two are required. Only a couple of military position maps showing unit arrangements prior to major battles.

Overall a good read, with solid support. She dismisses several of the negative accounts by saying that any person in leadership is bound to have scurilous tales told about them after they die, and that Alexander's successor prohibited the publishing of any positive stories about Alexander for many years. I would recommend this book for a quicker read than Arrianus' 430 page account, but it certainly does not have the depth.

Rating:
Summary: Author Infatuated with Alexander
Review: Savill's recitation of Alexander's career is a competent and literate retelling of The Great Captain's life and his campaign that destroyed the Persian Empire and founded the Hellenistic world. She also provides us with a general and useful survey of the wider Greek world, including his contemporary philosophers and artists. Saville, however, is nothing if not an apologist for Alexander, and as anyone who's read Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon" knows, there is much to apologize for, not least the murders of Callisthenes (his chronicler) and Parmenio (his lieutenant). Still, for an understanding of the orthodox, pro-Alexander position, one can do no better.

Rating:
Summary: The Great Macedonian
Review: Savill's recitation of Alexander's career is a competent and literate retelling of The Great Captain's life and his campaign that destroyed the Persian Empire and founded the Hellenistic world. She also provides us with a general and useful survey of the wider Greek world, including his contemporary philosophers and artists. Saville, however, is nothing if not an apologist for Alexander, and as anyone who's read Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon" knows, there is much to apologize for, not least the murders of Callisthenes (his chronicler) and Parmenio (his lieutenant). Still, for an understanding of the orthodox, pro-Alexander position, one can do no better.

Rating:
Summary: Very good book, but maybe too pro-Alexander
Review: The first half concerned Alexander's biography and the second was a good all around summary of Greek thought, culture, and history as a background to explain where Alexander was coming from. All the information was pretty much consistent with other Alexander books that I have read. If the author's accounts are true then one cannot blame Alexander's faults. The conquest of Persia in the style of Alexander, more as a builder of nations and not a destroyer, was not really a bad idea since at that time Persia was pretty much in decay, out of control with all its political strife, corruption, and abuses. The only major fault I find in him, if it could be called a fault, was only in dying too early contributed in part by recklessness, resulting in the split of the empire and ensuing conflicts between the succesors.

Rating:
Summary: Nice introduction.
Review: This book works very well as a general introduction into the life of Alexander the Great. At times going into details of his campaign and personality, but never lingering too long on the details. It is the only major work about Alexander that I have read and it has proven very worthwhile in knowing what he did and how he has affected history.

That being the case though, I will have to mention that Agnes Savill does tread the path of the apologist too many times. Often in asides or endings to the chapters she will compare Alexander�s actions and methods (usually of a less noble deed like an execution) to those of modern warfare. Warning the reader to judge lightly in the face of modern warfare�s horrors. Which is a good point, but also not necessary and too often distracting.

The last one-hundred pages of the book, after the biography and historical assessment of Alexander�s life and impact, deals with the world of Greece at the time before and during Alexander�s reign. Its passions, philosophy, and overall ideals are dabbled with in brief histories of the great philosophers, wars with Persia and Sparta, and other cultural tidbits. It made for fascinating reading, but felt rushed and lacked the narrative power of the Alexander part of the story, which is the great strength of the book.

Rating:
Summary: Nice introduction.
Review: This book works very well as a general introduction into the life of Alexander the Great. At times going into details of his campaign and personality, but never lingering too long on the details. It is the only major work about Alexander that I have read and it has proven very worthwhile in knowing what he did and how he has affected history.

That being the case though, I will have to mention that Agnes Savill does tread the path of the apologist too many times. Often in asides or endings to the chapters she will compare Alexander's actions and methods (usually of a less noble deed like an execution) to those of modern warfare. Warning the reader to judge lightly in the face of modern warfare's horrors. Which is a good point, but also not necessary and too often distracting.

The last one-hundred pages of the book, after the biography and historical assessment of Alexander's life and impact, deals with the world of Greece at the time before and during Alexander's reign. Its passions, philosophy, and overall ideals are dabbled with in brief histories of the great philosophers, wars with Persia and Sparta, and other cultural tidbits. It made for fascinating reading, but felt rushed and lacked the narrative power of the Alexander part of the story, which is the great strength of the book.