pothos.org

I have finished reading Prevas's book. It is a very antiAlexander agenda, which is very disappointing to me. He has followed Alexander's travels in person himself, so that his comments about the regions are very helpful and informative.But he sounds as though he is a person so well versed in Alexander that he can now demonstrate his interpretations with an air of sophistication and judgement that is free to make any sweeping statement he chooses. And he does that all the way through this monstrous regurgitation of all facts known to historians. He uses footnotes and bibliography well, but his conclusions and opinions are seemingly anti Alexander rather than pro Alexander. In the end, he convinced me that it would be difficult to be one of his students if you really like Alexander. Knowing one's professor is half the battle in succeeding in a classroom study.At any rate, certain things flew at me: the comment that Alexander is often interpreted as laughing at himself about his blood being ordinary blood rather than the ichthor of the gods, his presentation of the famous kiss between Alexander and Bagoas, and his conclusions about what may have happened to the twelve altars erected at the end of the journey on the Beas River.One important thing was stated in this book, and that is that most of that region is much the same today as it was then, including the appearances of some of the natives, and the stink of the fish! He was rather humorous when he described how ill the fish-eating group had made the army feel. And an insight into the clannishness of the Afghan tribes is very revealing, as where better for Osama bin Laden to hide than in a tribe described in this book. He does tell that many posters of Osama bin Laden abound in Afghanistan when he was there.Besides Marcus, I wonder if anyone else has read this book. And I totally agree with Marcus about the latter part of the book. It is more than just loopy! It is poisonous!

"But he sounds as though he is a person so well versed in Alexander that he can now demonstrate his interpretations with an air of sophistication and judgment that is free to make any sweeping statement he chooses."This, Jan, is what *every* modern writer does, whether or not they like Alexander and whether or not they are well-versed in his history! Let's face it, if their opinions or prejudices weren't reflected in their writings, then there would be no point in the books in the first place. We compare ancient sources to find out what we can about Alexander, but we read modern biographies to find out what the writer thinks about him. Unless there are new discoveries of ancient documents, no recent author can actually add any facts to Alexander's story - all they can do is proffer their own interpretation of characters and events.Frankly, I enjoy the books of hostile writers much more than those who praise Alexander. It's a lot more fun picking their books apart, especially when they get so enthused with their so-called insight that they trip up over known historical facts. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

Is a writer expected to have a reasonable vocabulary? He seems to have stumbled across a few words to refer to people: satrap, strategos...When he articulates a thought, he repeats it ad nauseum, from every conceivable direction...I'm about to give up the silly book. It seems written for dense children.Seriously, I wonder if it's meant to be a book for children.