Alexander into the bin

[marcus]

Didn't know where else to put this, but "into the bin" seems like a good place to mention that I just finished Doherty's horrible book on the death of Alexander. This guy has a doctorate in HISTORY? I made myself finish the whole thing, but I have a rather throbbing headache from all the eye-rolling this afternoon.

Thank goodness I didn't buy it, only checked it out of my tiny local library. I had read things about him before, but i had no idea how lurid it would be. *note to self: donate money for new books to library*.

I'm glad it's not just me who thinks that Doherty is one of the worst authors ever published. I haven't read his "Death" because I'd already read the equally appalling book on the subject by Graham Phillips, and couldn't justifying wasting more money. (This was when the Doherty book was only available in hardback. Now that it's in paperback I might get it, just for completeness' sake.)

However, I have read his murder mysteries set during Alexander's conquests and I have to say that they rank amongst the worst historical novels I have ever had the misfortune to read. He has absolutely no concept of the ancient world, he has grotesqued the characters unforgivably, including removing an entire dimension from them, the books are badly written, and ... and ... [pause for a heart tablet]

ATB

[athenas owl]

Oh, I had never read the Graham Phillips book either, but I just went to look at it online out of curiosity. He lost me right away when he states catagorically that there was no possible way that ATG could have had malaria because Babylon was in a desert, hence no mosquitos.

Did he miss the whole trip to the marshes in the month (s) before he died? It's just s little thing, I know. Well that and the marshy areas around Babylon itself..something about not being able to enter the city by a certain direction because of the marshes. He must have skipped that, too...


I do think it is entirely possible that ATG was murdered (as was Hephaistion possibly), the timing of the new campaign, etc seems just too coincidental. Then again, he may have just simply worn himself out. But these books are just so poorly researched and written...gack!

[marcus]

Oh, I had never read the Graham Phillips book either, but I just went to look at it online out of curiosity. He lost me right away when he states catagorically that there was no possible way that ATG could have had malaria because Babylon was in a desert, hence no mosquitos.

Did he miss the whole trip to the marshes in the month (s) before he died? It's just s little thing, I know. Well that and the marshy areas around Babylon itself..something about not being able to enter the city by a certain direction because of the marshes. He must have skipped that, too...

Oh, that's only the start of it. Every single page has either inaccuracy or pure fabrication all over it - lacking any ancient source information about Seleucus' youth, he completely invents it, and then proceeds to invent a heck of a lot more about Seleucus (to name just one of the people he systematically maligns and makes up).

It's arrant nonsense from beginning to end, and should not have been published.

ATB

[amyntoros]

However, I have read his <Doherty's> murder mysteries set during Alexander's conquests and I have to say that they rank amongst the worst historical novels I have ever had the misfortune to read. He has absolutely no concept of the ancient world, he has grotesqued the characters unforgivably, including removing an entire dimension from them, the books are badly written, and ... and ... [pause for a heart tablet]

Absolutely agree with everything you said. I don't know why I even read his novels, except that I used to love a good mystery and I continue to hope that Doherty might actually come up with one. Unfortunately there's a sameness about all his books and it is difficult to distinguish one from another. A while ago I bought one of his Alexander mysteries in a library sale and settled down to read it. Now, I can remember details and storylines of books that I read years ago, but I was more than half-way through this one before it began to seem a little too familiar. Sure enough, there was another copy already on my bookshelf! I had read it before and didn't even realize it.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

I do have to say this about Green, and others, including Michael Wood. To me their scholarship is a reflection of the anit-imperialist, anti-war sentiment that grew up especially in the sixties and seventies. Now me, personally..I am very anti-imperialist in my own modern era. But I don't try to retroactively push that same vision on a past over two thousand years. I know we are all products of our age, just as Arraian, Plutarch and Curtius were, but please be a little more aware of it.

Yes. Just as Tarn was a product of the late Victorian and post WWI idealistic internationalism; the “great world society" pushed by Wilson as well as others. Iif anti imperialism ever clouded an historian's work, it was this fellow. The age of empires was dead. They no longer flavour of the month. Idealists and – in the end – naïve leaders, led by Wilson, would see the world’s problems solved by a world body: the League of Nations. In such a milieu Tarn sought to explain Alexander’s conquests as anything but empire building; more a bringing together of the world – a “brotherhood of man”.

A construct of its time if ever one existed.

Bosworth, Green and others are not what I’d describe as “anti-imperialist” or necessarily anti war. They are, though, more prepared to deal with the conquest on a more visceral level. It was as it happened: bloody, driven and in the end, oft times murderous. Such are in the nature of conquest.

That is not to say that Alexander did not wish to reconcile, after a fashion, the ruling classes of his empire; plainly he did. Just as he irrevocably altered the nature of the Macedonian – or any for that matter – kingship. It became his most telling legacy as the Diadochoi struggled to assume that same kingship. Such reconciliation was, in my view, purely political and functional as with the changes planned to the army. The idea being to create both an army owing everything to Alexander as well as a ruling class. In my view, it had precious little to do with a “brotherhood of man” or Tarn’s fourth century League of Nations.

And that view is most likely infused by the watching of the exercise of politics and its “practical arm”, war, over the last few decades of the previous century.

As to the drinking, well there is much material in the sources we have of Macedonian "partying". Plutarch's long winded excursus in to excusing and explaining Alexander's habit of "lingering in conversation over his cup" and then sleeping in until midday or all day the following day would serve to indicate that Alexander was able to at least hold his own here against other Macedonian nobles. Apparently Hermolaus though so too - enough to list it as one reason to bump him off.

[athenas owl]

Paralus..I agree that Tarn and his era of historians are just as "guilty". I would just liket o find a middle ground..and maybe the truth in there somewhere. Though I agree that the ancient world was a bloody place and compassion short on the vine. That should be a given and ATG placed in the context of that world. Of THAT world, not ours.

As to the drinking, well there is much material in the sources we have of Macedonian "partying". Plutarch's long winded excursus in to excusing and explaining Alexander's habit of "lingering in conversation over his cup" and then sleeping in until midday or all day the following day would serve to indicate that Alexander was able to at least hold his own here against other Macedonian nobles. Apparently Hermolaus though so too - enough to list it as one reason to bump him off.

As for this...I do not know if ATG drank all the time, certainly he got catastrophically drunk in Samarkand. I do have to ask, though, did Hermolaus think that? Or rather was that Curtius thinking it and putting it and the rest of that very Roman speech in the boy's mouth?

[Paralus]

...I do not know if ATG drank all the time, certainly he got catastrophically drunk in Samarkand. I do have to ask, though, did Hermolaus think that? Or rather was that Curtius thinking it and putting it and the rest of that very Roman speech in the boy's mouth?

I think thare's reasonable evidence - particularly at the end - that drinking was comsuming his days, err, nights - oh well, sometimes both. That apologia from Plutarch - which appeared in the text rather uninvited - is a sure sign of defensiveness.

When it comes to what individuals are alleged to have said, well we can only guess. It goes to the motive behind the plot more than the individual. A little like the speeches in Thucydides: we know they are not the exact words (if, in some instances, any of the words at all), it is the motivations and views expressed. There had to be a reason and this is how Arrian (rather than Curtius) reports what "some writers" (of which Curtius is one) have written. One imagines them to be part of the "most authorities" who disagree with the fact that Callisthenes had anything at all to do with the plot. The actuall quote being:

In some writers, moreover, we find the story that Hermolaus, when brought to stand his trial, openly confessed his guilt, declaring that it was no longer possible for an honourable man to endure Alexander's inhuman arrogance; and then went on to give a list of his crimes - the lawless killing of Philiotas, the still more arbitrary execution of his father Parmenioand the other officers who were put to death on the same occasion, the murder in his cups of Clietus, his assumption of Persian dress, the duty of prostration he had planned, and was still (my italics) planning, to impose, his heavy drinking and his frunken sleeps..." (Anabasis 4.14)

As a king's personal guard, Hermolaus was in a unique postion to know. These may not be his exact words but they surely represent his reasons one might think.

As to Green, He himself highlights the rule of the Colonels as having a significant effect on the environs in which he worked. The appropriating of Alexander as the all Greek hero on recruiting posters etc. That more than an "anti-imperialist" stance might explain a reaction to hero worship. Though it does not explain why there was no edit for the re-write or why he mostly sticks to that view.

I have to say that I chuckled at the representations of Alexander at the Athens Olympics. Nothing nasty, just an ironic snirtle.

[jan]

The thing I love most about your posts is that you speak your mind, don't you? Let's all just trash Alexander and dump him because of some writer/director's movie fantasy! If movie Frankenstein even resembles Mary Shelley's version of him, I would think Hollywood gone mad. That is Hollywood...protect the guilty and innocent by changing and altering everything so nobody can get sued. I had to laugh about your comments about Genghis Khan, as you must read Rene Groussett's book on Genghis Khan. Frank Lister's is better, but Groussett loves to compare Alexander to Genghis, and it is amusing to read that way. I would love to hear you argue with him now.

Actually, at many levels, Genghis Khan comes out better than Alexander, according to Groussett, as he compares the two on many different points so well...Calisthenes for example, and an attitude. Genghis Khan is a noble and great leader, very reminiscent of Alexander as one cannot help but compare the two for their ventures into Afghanistan and India.

Genghis Khan appears to have delegated authority a bit better than Alexander as he does not have to be at the head of each and every battle but does trust his able generals to carry on for him. In terms of savagery, I believe Genghis Khan to be more humane. So there is room for discussion of the two men.

Genghis does not claim to be a god, but does claim that Heaven guides and directs all his actions. There are so many similarities there are times when one wonders if Genghis is Alexander reborn, or at least, the same invincible warrior like mentality and genius is the same in both of them. Genghis is more fascinating since he did not inherit an already built army as did Alexander, but had to start it from bottom up. I really like his lfiestudy and admire his qualities.

A different age, a different environment, but the same old military genius...how does that happen?

[jasonxx]

Jan hail

Ive always regarded Alexanders tollerance a weakness. Where the Khan Had none. Alexander tollerated greek meddling behind his back. He tollerated his grumbling Generals not to upset the apple cart.

As you say with the Khan he created his army from divided tribes through his own personal force of will and you right he wasnt born into it. Another factor indeed khan trusted his generals and loyalty and the returned the faith in him with victories. Alexander had to get the victories him self.

Like for like Alexander and the Khan were the same Genius but khan had the better backing group.through terror or Personality Khan forced his will. And the Khans Empire far out lasted the Macedonians. Its assumed that the Monghul Empire soon collapsed in a way it did. But it was kept going by there descendants the tartars.

If Alexander was the Khan he would have had the greek trouble causers boiled alive the City states so bloody terrified they wouldnt have dared touch persian gold. Nor would they think about bisobeying him. were Alexander the Khan he would have lived longer and indeed taken the world

[Efstathios]

Were Alexander the Khan, he wouldnt have been Great.

[jan]

Jochi, son of Genghis, seems to have had the bastard problem that Alexander experienced himself, which makes it all seem very interesting to me. Again, I agree that the Mongolians are much more loyal to Khan.