Peter Greens' book

[Maciek]

Hi all I wonder why Peter Greens' book is so famos. In my opinion it is unbalanced. Green writes about ATG always searching for some hiden motives and even if Alex is doing something very good (as Fuller writes "illuminating") Green is saying that he had something bad on his mind. I think that even if don't like for some reason Alex he should be honest with him and name good dids -"good" and bad dids - "bad". For me interesting expirience was to read Green and Fuller (strategical narrative) in same time - one chapter from each and another, it's interesting how far they are in their opinions from each other. Maciek

[Dave J]

I like Green's work and I also Like Fuller's work. When you read Fuller be mindful of the fact he is not a historian he is an old soldier, he is brilliant on logistics and millitary matters, for most historical events he simply paraphrases Arrian. Peter Green's is a world famous historian, although not without fault. You have to keep in mind that Green is in a better position to offer interpretation.

[Nick Christakes]

Hello David,
I haven't read Fuller's book, so can't comment on it, however...Green's book is another matter. Peter Green does indeed give an unbalanced interpretation of Alexander, and I think he should be taken lightly on many accounts. Though he may be closer to the real Alexander than many other Alexander historians, it does not excuse poor, one-sided judgements. In many cases he bends over backwards trying to prove how bad Alex was...instead of laying out what is known, and offering an unbiased opinion. Though he does state in the book that he came into the study of Alexander without pre-conceived notions, I find it hard to beleive. It does us no good to try to filter out slanted opinion's when we are trying to learn something, however, it does have a tendancy to generate debate, and that is good for the genre...later Nicator

[Maciek]

It's right that Green is known and good historian. I've red his biography note in the book and I was suprised how much expirience he has. Reading that part about Asia Minor I had feeling that he's great Alexs' antagonist. I have no doubt that he knew all sources much better than in exemple - me, but this is so strange to me: if he knew all this, why his point of view was so unbalanced. In my opinion many of his ideas on Alexs' double-dealing character are simply unfare. I don't state that everything what Alex did was perfect and I understand that evrybody can has his own opinion (it's even more interesting when there are deferent opinions for forum like this one) but we can't receive every good information about his dids as a proff of his hypocrisity, and produce explanation of his brave moves as made -succeded thanks to luck (like Curtius Rufus did).Maciek

[Cassini N]

Though I have currently read through only nine of the ten chapters of Mr Green's book, I find myself agreeing with the common assessment that he has takes an acutely critical perspective on Alexander's achievements.Having said that, I find his interpretation of the facts very intriguing and his writing quite engrossing. Mr Green's is the first book on Alexander the Great that I have read, and it has certainly sparked my interest enough to do more reading on Alexander. The copy of the book which I have is the 1991 edition, some twenty years after it was first published. To give the author some credit, he does note in his introduction (to the 1991 edition) that while he still holds fast to most of his points in the book, there are a few which he has given up after twenty years of hindsight: for instance, his take on the Battle of Granicus. Admittedly the book contains flaws, but the quality of the writing and the careful attempt to wade through half-truths and "propaganda" (a popular word in the book)is enough to salvage it from such criticism.

[Maciek]

Yes Cassini - agree fully with You. If You will read ancient sources like Arrian, Plutarch or Rufus You will see that even "vulgate" sources has many good points about Alexander. Regards

[Maciek]

True!
But I like Fullers' writings about Platoo ideas and his explanation of Alexander dids. I also think that You underestimate him, because I think there is more in his book that only paraphrasing Arrian. And my last point is that soldier (specially old) can better understand another soldier (even young like Alex). He knows better than any civilian how to deal with his soldiers, how soldiers react in dangerous situations and how to talk to them to gain his goals.Maciek