Alexander : The Ambiguity of Greatness

Rating:
Summary: Better Than The Others
Review: Erudite, engaging and immensely readable, Guy Maclean Rogers's new biography of Alexander may not contribute much new material to an ancient fascination, but the vividness of the writing combined with the author's passion for his subject makes for a gripping read. Though the book tends to race through Alexander's life at the expense of further detail, it is still a more patient account than other recent biographies rushed to stores in time for the movie. From his mounting of Philip II's incorrigible horse as a boy to his legendary pursuit of Darius throughout Persia and subsequent endeavor to avenge his murder (only because Alexander would have liked the honor of killing Darius himself), every quirk and rumor of Alexander's personality is explored here. It is hard to say anything necessarily "new" when no new sources of information exist beyond those of contemporary historians who continue to interpret the documents of the same handful of ancient writers: Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Plutarch and others. When a chairman of the Department of History at Wesleyan University with a Ph.D. from Princeton tosses yet another biography into the fray, it is usually an attempt to dispute the conclusions of other biographers. Rogers does plenty of that here. Downplaying accounts of Alexander's homosexuality while attempting to understand his bloody rampages across the known world within the context of his times, Rogers objects to notions of Alexander as the Hitler or Stalin of the ancient world, often pointing to the equally brutal tactics of the king's contemporaries. Admittedly, Rogers tends to apologize for Alexander's brutality where he really ought to leave it up to the reader to decide. An ability to let the facts speak for themselves is what makes Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon the preeminent contemporary study of Alexander. But if Rogers's book lacks the authority of a less-enamored chronicle, it makes up for this flaw with its informed eloquence. Rogers has given us a book flooding over with the warm and knowledgeable passion of a scholar who loves his job as much as he loves his subject. If that is a "flaw," I sure wouldn't mind being accused of it myself.



Rating:
Summary: Who'd have thought a history book could be this much fun?
Review: First of all, I'd just like to correct a previous reviewer. Guy Rogers is a professor at WELLESLEY College, not Wesleyan. It's a very common mistake. :-) Wellesley, for those unfamiliar with it, is the number 4 liberal arts school in the country, and a women's college to boot. Well-known alums include Madeleine Albright, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nora Ephron, and Diane Sawyer.

Now on to the book. Rogers does a fantastic job breathing life into what could be a very dry biography about a long-dead conqueror. His style is wry and witty, but not flippant. He is very careful to remind the reader of the current relavence of his tale. I got rather the opposite impression than a lot of other readers; Rogers's discussion of Alexander's bisexuality did not strike me as "uncomfortable." I'd recommend this book for just about anyone (not kids, though; Rogers writes in a rather convoluted style, using words one would expect of a Princeton PhD), but particularly for history buffs or just anyone looking for a good yet educational read!

Rating:
Summary: Not worthy of Alexander
Review: For inconvenient facts which he doesn't like, such as Alexander's sexuality, Rogers demands the most rigorous evidence good enough to satisfy a supreme court judge. For inconvenient facts which are undeniable - the murder of Cleitus, the purges, the burning of the Persian city, the tortures of prisoners, etc. - Rogers forgives, justifies, rationalizes, mitigates, papers over, whitewashes, or simply passes over. If Walt Disney ever decides to make an animated film of Alexander for children, Rogers would be its perfect consultant. This biography lacks the competence or the neutral, even-headed perspective required of a true historian of Alexander.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent and provocative book, a must read
Review: For those who anticipate Oliver Stone's much hyped upcoming film "Alexander", this eminently readable book by the eminent historian Guy Maclean Rogers will serve as the ideal historical companion. Rogers stays close to the original sources, and gives a reasoned, balanced, and judicious assessment of this most important figure. What is most engaging about this book is Roger's willingness to assess the validity of various claims about Alexander's personal characteristics, and his historical significance. Readers of this book will be well-prepared to separate fact from fiction regarding Alexander, and will be well-rewarded.

Rating:
Summary: The ambiguous quality of this book
Review: This book is a serious attempt at another life of Alexander, perhaps to coincide with Oliver Stone's film due out later this month. But I have some difficulty with some of the claims in this book, particularly with respect to the following:

1) The notion that Alexander's life is now capable of a "balanced" and reliable biography. The truth is, much that is thought to be known about him remains conjectural. The main outline is clear, but I'm astounded by this claim to balance and objectivity. One needs only read Claude Mosse to know how thorny the problem is for a historian.

2) The idea that Alexander was somehow responsible for the spread of Christianity. (I mean, come on.)

3) The wishful thinking that sex was not an important factor in his relationship with Hephaistion. There may be no unambiguous evidence that sex was central to their friendship, but then there is no unambiguous evidence for anything about Alexander. It has been said that Alexander was never defeated except by Hephaistion's thighs. Ancient Greeks (men) of his station and profession regularly engaged in sexual behavior with members of their own sex (that's what their "symposium" was really for). And Alexander's extreme, totally out-of-line reaction to Hephaistion's death suggests (to me anyway) that Hephaistion was much more than a lover. As Alexander was used to point out, Hephaistion was also Alexander. At a minimum, that he was his Patroclus (to Alexander's Achilles) was made clear to all by Alexander himself.

4) Above all, the comparison of Alexander with Truman and Churchill because of the "ambiguity of greatness" which the author claims they have in common. I am not at all convinced that such a comparison is warranted by the facts. Truman ordered the atomic bombings in order to prevent more deaths on both the Japanese and the American sides. And yes, Churchill made some mistakes as a strategist which resulted in unnecessary deaths. But Alexander was directly and personally responsible for massacres (sometimes of civilians), tortures, forced marches, blood sacrifices (for his Hephaistion, for example), ruthless purges of his own Companions, and other atrocities which would be abhorrent by ancient or modern standards. Nothing of the kind could be attached to Truman or Churchill. Also, Alexander was always the aggressor in his career. There is no evidence that the Persians under Darius had concrete plans to conquer Alexander and occupy Macedon. Can anyone honestly tell me that Truman or Churchill started World War II? To claim that Alexander was no mass murderer does not really match his record. It is also unnecessary, I believe, to establish his historical greatness.

It is quite jarring to me to compare Alexander's "ambiguity of greatness" with that of Truman and Churchill. In my opinion, the greatness of Truman and Churchill is far less ambiguous than Alexander's. But it is also my belief that Alexander's greatness surpasses that of Truman or Churchill. If a comparison should be made at all, Alexander should have been placed next to Napoleon Bonaparte, who unlike Alexander was defeated not by alcohol (if Alexander wasn't murdered by poisoned wine he would in any case have been killed by too much of it) but by his own lack of restraint, but whose long-term legacy is as enduring as Alexander's.

Alexander is known as "the Great" for three reasons: first, the extent of his conquests, which were incredibly large by ancient standards (esp. for one individual); second, his military prowess, which includes not only his personal physical bravery but also the fact that his stunning brilliance as field commander resulted in an unbroken record of victories (except for the self-inflicted disaster in the Gedrosian desert); and finally, also for his personal charm, for which there are some legendary examples (until that quality began to be destroyed by increasing irrationality, tyrannical tendency, and advanced alcoholism). That he treated the Persian royal ladies with respect was unexpected of someone in his situation at that time. A man so dominated psychologically by his own mother could hardly have been accused of immunity to feminine intelligence. But for some reason the author immediately jumps to the conclusion that Alexander was therefore a proto-feminist.

But none of these can whitewash the fact that Alexander was the undisputed cause of much suffering and many deaths, none of which can be said to have prevented more of the same. To quote Peter Green, who seems to me a much more balanced historian, "It is idle to palliate this central truth, to pretend that he dreamed, in some mysterious fashion, of wading through rivers of blood and violence to achieve the Brotherhood of Man by raping an entire continent. He spent his life, with legendary success, in the pursuit of personal glory, Achillean 'kleos'... The empire he built collapsed the moment he was gone; he came as a conqueror and the work he wrought was destruction." Note the term "central truth." This is a view which the Cambridge scholar Paul Cartledge (whose new biography of Alexander I have enjoyed) would probably not disagree with. Alexander was indeed great, but not for the reasons Prof. Rogers imagines, I'm afraid. High-minded ideals of the sort sometimes attributed to him (as in this book) would have seemed totally inscrutable to the real Alexander, while his own soldiers were motivated by even baser things, such as loot. I need hardly add that to the eyes of Genghis Khan the "continent" Alexander "raped" - roughly speaking, what lies between the Adriatic and the Indus - would have seemed like an absurd pebble. The Mongols at their apex owned everything east of the Black Sea including the Black Sea itself, the Ukraine, all of Russia, much of eastern Turkey, the Caucasus, the whole Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), the northern coasts of the Persian Gulf and the entire Persia, all of Central Asia, the Hindu Kush, Tibet, all of China right down to Hong Kong, and the complete Korean peninsula. Only the Arabian deserts, the Indian subcontinent, southeast Asia and Japan remained out of their grasp. They wiped out the Germans (the Teutonic Knights) and cleaned up the Poles in battle in Hungary. They turned back from Europe only because their great khan suddenly died. Their troop strength was often 1 to 100 of their enemies. Yet their conquests last almost two centuries, while Alexander's barely survived his own lifetime. Genghis began the war and, unlike Alexader's satraps, his successors continued his work. The amount of land and the number of people under their rule was hugely out of proportion to their homeland, and the ratio between the homebase and the conquests compares very favorably with Alexander's Macedon and his empire. Alexander got as far as Pakistan but not even India proper. Alexander was great, certainly, but not nearly as great as this book's author likes to claim even judging by the crudest measure of the acreage of land touched by the hoofs of his horses. (And where Alexander rode big, beautiful steeds worthy of racing, Genghis had only ponies for his job.)

This book reminds one of Sir William Tarn's influential but flawed biography - without, however, the authoritativeness which Tarn, who wrote the chapters on Alexander in the prestigious "Cambridge Ancient History," for too long commanded. The resemblance with Tarn's "League of Nations Alexander" is striking. Both are hagiographies, reflecting the authors' certain personal views of current events but inevitably compromising their objectivity. It is significant that Alexander's conquests included modern Iraq, and that Tarn was a Victorian colonialist in search of a justification. Peter Green observes that Tarn's approach is "totally bankrupt in principle, if still a most impressive achievement over mattes of detail." Paul Cartledge calls Tarn's view "exploded" by the evidence. The Oxford scholar Robin Lane Fox has even harsher words: Tarn's interpretation was "persistently mistaken both in method and evidence." I don't claim to refute Prof. Rogers in every matter of detail. But I do question his general approach to and overall interpretation of Alexander, in much the same way that Tarn's own is now thoroughly questioned by other Alexandrine specialists. To imagine that the ruthless conqueror who torched Persepolis was a liberal progressive who intended to spread his gentlemanly ideals wherever he went strikes me as too politically motivated for comfort. It's all right for a journalist to do so, but not for a historian.

Rating:
Summary: Absurd
Review: When a historian deliberately sets out to idolize a conqueror, no matter how great, he or she has himself or herself to blame for being disbelieved. I don't know any modern biographer of Alexander except William Tarn who took such a one-sided attitude to this man. This book even claims that now an "accurate, balanced, and convincing" biographty is possible (implying you know which book meets this high standard). I beg to differ.

It really bothers me when a historian refuses to face reality. Though I am an admirer of the great king, I think Rogers's whole perspective is wrong. He seems to think that Alexander did what he did in order to create a sort of commonwealth for all "sons of Zeus" - including the Persians, the Indians, etc. - all for their benefit. Even worse, Rogers compares Alexander with Truman and Churchill, because Truman atomic bombed Japan and Churchill made a mistake in World War I which cost some innocent lives. Leaving aside his comparison of Alexander with Mozart for the moment - he makes this comparison because Mozart also "disturbs our rest" - I don't see how a fair-minded person, let alone a historian, can say such things. Had Japan not been atomic bombed, Japan would not have surrendered, and an invasion of mainland Japan had been estimated to cost a million GIs - dead - and who knows how many more Japanese lives? As for Churchill, it is one thing to make a tactical error, but quite another to kill people as the aggressor. It is clear that Rogers does not even care to look objective. It is a wonder that he doesn't compare Alexander with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Mother Theresa.

The assertion, which Rogers repeatedly makes, that Alexander was no Hitler or Stalin is, on the face of it, quite correct. But it that saying much for the blood-soaked invader? Hitler and Stalin are quite plainly the worst mass-murderers in all history. So I'm not sure what Rogers is really aiming to prove here, except that no comparison is too extreme for him to support that particular viewpoint which he holds.

Clearly, Alexander's homosexuality is something Rogers is uncomfortable with. So he adds this bombshell after all the rationalizing: "Yet the umambiguous evidence that sex was central to their [Alexander with Hephaeistion] relationship is conspicuously absent." One needs to be a lawyer to parse this sentence, but I can think of no easier way for a historian to weasel out of this fact about Alexander than such a precise statement. You want to know what is "unambiguous evidence," what "central" means, and above all what Rogers means by "sex." Robin Lane Fox and Peter Green certainly believed Alexander's relationship with Hephaeistion was sexual. Paul Cartledge also. Indeed most reputable biographers admitted as much. Tarn, for obvious reasons, did not. But then I suppose no amount of evidence would seem "unambiguous" enough for Rogers - short of a baby! Even then Rogers would doubt such a baby would prove anything, DNA testing not yet available then to establish paternity. Can I blame Rogers? It wasn't so long ago that a well-known public figure claimed he didn't have a sexual relationship (just "an inappropriate relationship") with his intern because, as it turned out, he had defined "sex" as full intercourse only. I suppose there are some things two men can't do with each other no matter how hard they try (like making a baby).

I hope you have an idea by now the premises from which Rogers attempts to argue throughout this book. The trouble with Alexander is that there are different ways to look at the facts, and the facts themselves are often hard to come by. Rogers's claim to "accuracy, balance, and conviction" is not as simple as the "ABC" which these words happen to stand for, when it comes to so elusive a figure. The very ancient nature of the saga is a problem, for we must rely on the veracity and the resources of the ancient historians, like Arrian, who themselves wrote long after the events. But it does startle me when a writer takes an interpretation which differs so much from the ones I know from the biographies written by A. R. Burn, Lane Fox, Green, Paul Cartledge (the recent addition) and especially A. B. Bosworth - all highly reputable historians of Alexander and specialists of ancient Greece. I may be wrong, but I smell something fishy about this book.



Rating:
Summary: Christopher Hitchens Says Rogers Has it Right
Review: You don't need my opinion. Consider Christopher Hitchens' remarks on Rogers' assessment of Alexander:

"But should he [Alexander] be compared with the other great despots of antiquity, or with more modern totalitarians and butchers?

A very absorbing recent book, Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness, by Guy MacLean Rogers, argues that this modern temptation should be avoided. Alexander's tutor was Aristotle (a fact that supplies endless fascination to those who study the relationship between philosophers and monarchs, from Machiavelli to Leo Strauss). And Aristotle, perhaps sharing in the continuing rage and shame at the Persian desecration of the Acropolis in 480 B.C., urged his pupil to treat the peoples of the Persian Empire as coldly as he would plants or animals. The available evidence is that Alexander did not take this advice."

Read the whole thing: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110188/