Conquest and Empire : The Reign of Alexander the Great (Canto)

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant, balanced history of Alexander's reign
Review: Bosworth, a Professor of Classics and Ancient History at theUniversity of Western Australia, is one of the leading scholars oflate classical and early hellenistic Greek history. He is known particularly for his research on Alexander the Great and the historian Arrian of Nicomedia. This book is not a biography of Alexander's life--Bosworth rightly calls that "undesirable to attempt and impossible to achieve"--but rather a history of his short reign as King of Macedon. It is one of the best and certainly among the most balanced studies of the great conqueror, which is why it is so widely used in universities around the world.

Alexander the Great is, of course, one of history's greatest, most ambitious and colorful individuals, and he was recognized as such even in antiquity. People have for centuries attempted to find out what he was really like, often creating a personality for him out of thin air or without any caution in using the surviving sources; as a result it is possible to find many dubious "histories" of his reign or "psychoanalytical studies" of the man himself. Bosworth focuses hard on the ancient evidence as it survives and bases his study on that, making footnote references to modern works as appropriate. His grasp of the ancient sources and of modern studies is staggering, and he has a gift for sifting through the masses of conflicting theories and getting down to the core questions: "What do the sources tell us? What do we really know about Alexander?" We find that many things about him remain hopelessly obscure, which is precisely why he continues to intrigue us. Bosworth shows that the history of Alexander's reign can be handled in a very balanced and sober way without losing any of the drama, intrigue and fascination that characterize it. We are treated to the best of both worlds in his study.

This book is excellent both for the specialist who needs to reacquaint himself with the broader view of the period, and for the general reader who wishes to learn the basic facts about Alexander's achievements and legacy. Bosworth appeals to both by dividing the book into two parts: a chronological, narrative survey of the period beginning with Philip II's legacy and ending with the aftermath of Alexander's death, and a series of thematic chapters which tackle various aspects of Alexander's rule (for example, "Financial Administration," "Alexander and the Army," and "The Divinity of Alexander"). The general reader may gain a good knowledge of the chronological spread of the period without having to go into the thematic sections at all, while those who are interested in learning more about the wider context of Alexander's rule can do so in the second part of the book. Either way the reader will come away with a strong grasp of the basic facts and controversies surrounding Alexander's reign, as well as an appreciation for his extraordinary impact on Western history generally. This is a wonderful book dealing with a fascinating period.

Rating:
Summary: Bosworth's views on Alexander are not supported by facts
Review: I have found Bosworth's book "Conquest and Empire - The Reign of Alexander the Great" very useful for his scholarly approach and for many references but Bosworth's chief weakness is his undue dependence on the Greek and Roman authors. Bosworth fails as an objective scholar mainly because of his ignorance of the Sanskrit and Pali sources which offer invaluable data. Like his mentor Badian, he totally ignores historical details. Alexander was surely chasing Moeris of Pattala through Gedrosia and a little circumspection shows that Moeris was the leader of the Indians whose defeat he celebrated at Kahnuj in southeast Iran. Thus Kahnuj was Palibothra, not Patna in the east where not a single archaeological relic of the Mauryas has been found. This shows that Moeris was none other than Chandragupta Maurya, the leader of the Prasii. In fact Moeris was also the same as the Satrap Sasigupta ('Sashi'='Chandra'= moon). This rubbishes Bosworth's claim that Alexander's Gedrosian expedition was only due to his insane desire to surpass Dionysius and Semiramis.

Bosworth writes much about Alexander's vehemence at Tyre but is not aware that this was aimed at the husband of the daughter of the Satrap Pixodarus whom he once wanted to marry. This was Orontobates of Caria without a careful study of whom Alexander's life history cannot be written. We find Orontobates who was the same as Sissines or Sasigupta later in mysterious circumstances. It is beyond Bosworth's dream that this Sissines was the same as Tiridates who almost handed over the treasury of Persepolis to Alexander. Diodorus gave the name of Tiridates as the ruler of Gedrosia where Alexander chased Moeris or Sasigupta. He also has no idea that Andragorus was the same as Androcottos or Sandrocottos. A little knowledge of Sanskrit shows that the Sun's quadriga of Andragorus' coins in fact gives his name as Arunadas or Orontes. Aruna is the Dawn as personified by the charioteer of the Sun. This is Orontes of Armenia.

Furthermore, as I have shown,... Alexander's altars have not been found because these were overwritten by Asoka and converted into his pillars. At least one of the famous Asokan pillars (Topra) was shifted from the Beas area where Alexander had setup his altars. Plutarch wrote that in his days the altar's of Alexander were held in much veneration by the Prasiians, whose kings were in the habit of crossing the Ganges every year to offer sacrifices in the Grecian manner upon them. This exposes the shallowness of Bosworth's claim about the triviality of Alexander's legacy. As the Prasiians after Bindusara were Buddhists, Plutarch's report clearly hints at Alexander's role in the revival of Buddhism in pre-Asokan India. From Asoka's references themselves it can be inferred that the inscriptions in the altars were related to his call for homonoia. Historians have to guard against undue glorification but this should not be a blind exercise. Tarn and Lane Fox took a saner view.

Rating:
Summary: A thoroughly dishonest book
Review: If you can read only one book about Alexander the Great, read something other than A. Brian Bosworth's "Conquest and Empire - The Reign of Alexander the Great". Sadly, Bosworth's 1988 doorstop is little more than a hatchet job, wearing the mask of a serious work of scholarship.

The facade is awfully good -- Bosworth's command of his subject is made abundantly clear by the unending flood of footnoted citations of sources both ancient and modern, famous and obscure. The central problem is that, early in the book's Prologue, Bosworth sneers "the history of (Alexander's) reign has all too often been a thinly disguised biography, distorted by the personality and values of its author," and then goes on to promise, "This book is an attempt to analyse Alexander's impact on his world without any preconceived notion of his personality or motives."

And then -- over and over again throughout the work -- he commits the very sins of distortion and preconception that his Prologue so disdains. "Conquest and Empire" thereby becomes an abyssal sump of academic dishonesty and deep and fundamental scholarly hypocrisy. Throughout its more than 300 pages of agate type, Bosworth employs the rhetorical weapons of invidious phraseology and highly selective citation to paint an almost unremittingly dark and sour portrait of Alexander.

Now, mind you, in my book, there is nothing wrong with taking a skeptical or even a studiously negative view of one's subject, just as I have no problem with the opposite approach, so long as the writer is honest about his own prejudices in either case. From my perspective, Bosworth's sin lies in his pretense to objectivity, rather than in his relentless negativity.

Since he burst on the scholarly Alexandrian scene in 1981 with the publication of Volume I of his "A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander", Bosworth has been the anointed heir to the throne of his hero and mentor, Ernst Badian. As the enfant terrible of the "Alexander the Bad" school of thought, it is clear that Bosworth finds violence and war in general deeply repugnant on a personal level, and he wears his bias on his sleeve in his every description of Alexander's military encounters and punitive actions.

Unfortunately, he allows his own prejudice in that regard to deeply color both his presentation and his versions of the details of these incidents in what can only be regarded as a calculated betrayal of his claim of objectivity and of the trust of his less-well-informed readers. As one example of this systematic dishonesty -- and it is far from alone -- let us examine his narrative of the closing events of the siege of Tyre.

Apparently because it would undermine his theme of Alexander's savagery, Bosworth fails even to mention Arrian's report of the Tyrian murder of a group of captured Sidonian sailors, whose bodies were then cast into the sea -- an act of sacrilege that would have, for lack of Charon's fee, condemned the victims to wander the Earth as ghosts, instead of their shades being admitted to the Underworld or perhaps even the Elysium Fields. (To discount the story as propaganda would have been one thing -- to omit it entirely, especially in the face of his obsessive footnoting of the most minor negative details, is quite another.) Likewise, he states as fact that Alexander ordered 2000 Tyrians crucified, although that detail appears only in Curtius' and Diodorus' accounts. (Again, to have characterized this incident as probably true would have been one thing -- to state it flatly as a fact is another.)

These are not omissions we would expect from a truly objective scholar -- and particularly not from one so inordinately fond of otherwise-exhaustive, chapter-and-verse citations of the ancient sources on the most picayune details of geographic and other non-military matters.

Worst of all, in my view, although Bosworth cites the work of an incredible array of geographers, historians and other specialists, he never once mentions or alludes to Major General J.F.C. Fuller's seminal analysis "The Generalship of Alexander the Great", even though Bosworth himself goes to great pains to offer his own dissection of the events of each of Alexander's battles, great and small. Since Fuller is the ONLY professional military strategist to have written on the subject -- and his book is well-known and frequently cited by other Alexander historians -- that oversight can only have been purposeful on Bosworth's part, and his substitution of his own analysis without so much as acknowledging Fuller's work can only be viewed as an act of supreme hubris.

Even though I cannot claim to be a scholar, I believe that the praise that the other reviewers have heaped upon Bosworth here is undeserved. Instead, I think he merits the sternest opprobrium for his intellectual dishonesty and purposefully misleading professions of objectivity.

Likewise, I feel that "Conquest and Empire" is a book that only those who are thoroughly enough versed in the Alexander canon to recognize the hatchet marks should read. For them, it has considerable value, if only for its exhaustive citation of the work of modern geographers. The casual reader would be far better served by even Robin Lane Fox's "In Search of Alexander", which, for all its flaws, at least does not pretend to objectivity.

Rating:
Summary: A thoroughly dishonest book
Review: If you can read only one book about Alexander the Great, read something other than A. Brian Bosworth's "Conquest and Empire - The Reign of Alexander the Great". Sadly, Bosworth's 1988 doorstop is little more than a hatchet job, wearing the mask of a serious work of scholarship.

The facade is awfully good -- Bosworth's command of his subject is made abundantly clear by the unending flood of footnoted citations of sources both ancient and modern, famous and obscure. The central problem is that, early in the book's Prologue, Bosworth sneers "the history of (Alexander's) reign has all too often been a thinly disguised biography, distorted by the personality and values of its author," and then goes on to promise, "This book is an attempt to analyse Alexander's impact on his world without any preconceived notion of his personality or motives."

And then -- over and over again throughout the work -- he commits the very sins of distortion and preconception that his Prologue so disdains. "Conquest and Empire" thereby becomes an abyssal sump of academic dishonesty and deep and fundamental scholarly hypocrisy. Throughout its more than 300 pages of agate type, Bosworth employs the rhetorical weapons of invidious phraseology and highly selective citation to paint an almost unremittingly dark and sour portrait of Alexander.

Now, mind you, in my book, there is nothing wrong with taking a skeptical or even a studiously negative view of one's subject, just as I have no problem with the opposite approach, so long as the writer is honest about his own prejudices in either case. From my perspective, Bosworth's sin lies in his pretense to objectivity, rather than in his relentless negativity.

Since he burst on the scholarly Alexandrian scene in 1981 with the publication of Volume I of his "A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander", Bosworth has been the anointed heir to the throne of his hero and mentor, Ernst Badian. As the enfant terrible of the "Alexander the Bad" school of thought, it is clear that Bosworth finds violence and war in general deeply repugnant on a personal level, and he wears his bias on his sleeve in his every description of Alexander's military encounters and punitive actions.

Unfortunately, he allows his own prejudice in that regard to deeply color both his presentation and his versions of the details of these incidents in what can only be regarded as a calculated betrayal of his claim of objectivity and of the trust of his less-well-informed readers. As one example of this systematic dishonesty -- and it is far from alone -- let us examine his narrative of the closing events of the siege of Tyre.

Apparently because it would undermine his theme of Alexander's savagery, Bosworth fails even to mention Arrian's report of the Tyrian murder of a group of captured Sidonian sailors, whose bodies were then cast into the sea -- an act of sacrilege that would have, for lack of Charon's fee, condemned the victims to wander the Earth as ghosts, instead of their shades being admitted to the Underworld or perhaps even the Elysium Fields. (To discount the story as propaganda would have been one thing -- to omit it entirely, especially in the face of his obsessive footnoting of the most minor negative details, is quite another.) Likewise, he states as fact that Alexander ordered 2000 Tyrians crucified, although that detail appears only in Curtius' and Diodorus' accounts. (Again, to have characterized this incident as probably true would have been one thing -- to state it flatly as a fact is another.)

These are not omissions we would expect from a truly objective scholar -- and particularly not from one so inordinately fond of otherwise-exhaustive, chapter-and-verse citations of the ancient sources on the most picayune details of geographic and other non-military matters.

Worst of all, in my view, although Bosworth cites the work of an incredible array of geographers, historians and other specialists, he never once mentions or alludes to Major General J.F.C. Fuller's seminal analysis "The Generalship of Alexander the Great", even though Bosworth himself goes to great pains to offer his own dissection of the events of each of Alexander's battles, great and small. Since Fuller is the ONLY professional military strategist to have written on the subject -- and his book is well-known and frequently cited by other Alexander historians -- that oversight can only have been purposeful on Bosworth's part, and his substitution of his own analysis without so much as acknowledging Fuller's work can only be viewed as an act of supreme hubris.

Even though I cannot claim to be a scholar, I believe that the praise that the other reviewers have heaped upon Bosworth here is undeserved. Instead, I think he merits the sternest opprobrium for his intellectual dishonesty and purposefully misleading professions of objectivity.

Likewise, I feel that "Conquest and Empire" is a book that only those who are thoroughly enough versed in the Alexander canon to recognize the hatchet marks should read. For them, it has considerable value, if only for its exhaustive citation of the work of modern geographers. The casual reader would be far better served by even Robin Lane Fox's "In Search of Alexander", which, for all its flaws, at least does not pretend to objectivity.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: With the plethora of books out there about Alexander, (ranging from the silly to historical-fiction/fictitious history), as a layman I wanted a book that would give me solid historical information instead of wish fulfillment and in this Dr.Bosworth definitely delivers. If you are not a student of Classical History but a layperson, (as I am), to this subject, be warned...you will need a good working knowledge of the geography of Asia Minor and the Near East and a familiarity with Classical Languages and terminology, but with patience and a few good dictionaries is more than worth the effort. You will learn about a man who may well stand as one of the most influential human beings who ever lived. Why read silly fiction about Alexander when the facts, (as best we know them), are incredible enough in themselves?