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

Rating:
Summary: Still the best
Review: Peter Green may be, as others have accused, a revisionist historian, but at least he has not accepted the picture painted of Alexander in Plutarch's lives without criticism. He also appears to understand the difference between the ancients and ourselves and is much more objective than the average. Those with an axe to grind will not like or appreciate that. Recently , on the History Channel, several British scholars were interviewed about the Roman emperor Augustus. They were so excited that Augustus had apparently replaced the republic with a monarchy that they were about to pee on themselves. Peter Green does not appear to have any such agendas in mind except to correct the blind admiration so prevalent in the poor scholarship that continues to surround Alexander to this day. As far as I can tell a little revisionism did the story of Alexander the Great a world of good. We appear to be entering an age of blind admiration of Alexamder the Great again. This does not bode well. I was recently in a major bookstore and an entire display was dedicated to works on Alexander demonstrating little or no scholarship. There is even a leadership book using him as a role model. I guess the consultants are running out of names and stories. Anyhow, for anybody looking for a tremendous entry point into the Alexander literature, this is by far and away the best book out there.

Rating:
Summary: Conspiratorial Alexander
Review: Peter Green's biography paints a very dark and rather cynical view of Alexander. To read his book is to think that Alex carefully planned out all his actions. He carefully awaited opportunities to eliminate his former friends who were perceived as potential threats. Green must be more a follwer of Curtius and his views of Alex as opposed to Arrian who is more an outright admirer. Alexander's life is so complicated and comprises so many events that its hard to ascribe so many deliberate motives as are implied here. Green seems to point out all the evidence at Alexander for wanting to murder Philotas, Parmenion, Clietus etc., and then afterwards adds that such accusations may all be conjecture afterall! This reveals Green's bias toward this subject it would seem.

While I don't doubt that Alexander was certainly no saint, and his grand campaigns through Asia killed many thousands, to imply that he was such a schemer seems a bit unfair. If anything I think Alexander was prone to sudden and often violent mood changes, brought about by many factors. The combination of Philip II and Olympia as his parents was certain to create an individual that combined many extreme tendencies. We see this in him as he combines attributes of both in his character. He could be gracious one moment, violently angry the next. Was often mystical and reclusive, and prone perhaps toward mistrust. These characteristics became more pronounced after the death of Darius III and his assumption of the status of Great King. It is fair to say that up until this point Alexander's march had inspired all who followed him. As him came to assume more imperial trappings his character changed as he perceived threats from those who did not approve of this policy.

Alexander's character evolved and changed as circumstances developed. Did he cross the Hellespoint with the grand intent to assume control of the whole Persian empire immediately, or did the concept gradually evolve as the possibility increasingly presented itself? This remains one of the great unanswered questions about Alexander. There will always be those who see it either one way or the other. For Peter Green it seems Alexander more or less intended from the beginning to conquer all before him. We can either agree with this or not.

One of the more intriguing aspects about this book contained in the appendix is the discussion concerning the location of the battle of the Granicus. Green seems to think the battle was not fought directly on the River itself, but rather further downwards after Alexander crossed it. He implies that Alexander may have suffered a repulse at first, leading to his subsequent crossing further down to fight the Persians on more even ground. So much for the grand charge across the Granicus so often mentioned. But then did Cletius also save him in the same way if this happaned? Many questions exist. Green believes that Alexander's propaganda department neatly covered over this repulse and re-wrote the Granicus as an heroic epic. Anything is possible in dealing with history so long ago.

Green has done an interesting and impressive work. He raises many worthwhile questions about Alexander. There is a somewhat hostile stance toward his subject, but given this bias, this biography is still a worthwhile addition to all the others out there. Read, enjoy and think!

Rating:
Summary: An excellent work of biography and history
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Read along with Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy
Review: This is one of the best books of the genre. It is immaculately detailed, richly portrayed, and densely packed with information that should serve any Alexander enthusiast. I found it insipiring reading when I supplemented it with Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy, which is a terrific book that helps the reader step back from Alexander's conquests and battles and makes us think about the implications of what we just read. I also rank Robin Lane-Fox's book in the small cluster of books that really help the reader comprehend the true nature of a very complex man - the greatest conqueror who ever lived. Skip all the rest of the books fast piling up.

Rating:
Summary: Historian with a Novelist's Flair
Review: Wow! In reading history, a person becomes accustomed to the normally dry tone set by many historians. The statement of facts, the laundry list of dates, etc. have become the norm in this form of writing. Enter Peter Green. Green has taken an already interesting story of a remarkable man and has brought it to us in all its epic glory. No avid history reader can help but be impressed with the novelist's touch Green applies to these factual events. Without losing a minute to boredom, the reader is guided through roughly four decades of ancient history with the dramatic panache of a Stephen Pressfield and the factuality of well,..Peter Green. This has been the most enjoyable historical biography that I have read. Recommend for any historical library.