The Conquests of Alexander by Waldemar Heckel

[jan]

I have just picked up my copy of Heckel's latest book, The Conquests of Alexander the Great. Has anyone read it? I have read only the first three chapters, but it is pretty easy going so far. He wrote a review of Carol Thomas's book on the World of Alexander and the two books strike me as being quite similar in written expression.

[Tantalus]

Thanks jan!

And if anyone wants a peek you can read the Table of Contents and a short excerpt at:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/c ... 0521842471
.

[Paralus]

It would appear that I will, with some alacrity, need to email Santa to place a copy of this book in my stocking. If Heckel keeps to the promise shown by his preface then this should be a decent read.

Those who persist in seeing Alexander as a reincarnation of Achilles, as an irrational youth on a heroic quest for fame and immortality, have been taken in by the myth-makers who shaped the Alexander legend, and they run the risk, in my opinion, of reducing one of the world’s greatest military strategists to a childish daydreamer and a spoiled brat under the spell of sycophants and his own delusions. This is reflected not only in the trendy subtitles of many books that are published today but in the naïve approaches taken by those who sell Alexander as a cultural icon….Worst of all, too much biography and not enough history has put the cart before the horse. No longer do we judge Alexander by his actions, policies, and historical achievement. Rather, we interpret his actions and his motives on the basis of preconceived notions about his psychological makeup and his social and sexual orientations. Too many of those who write about Alexander today claim to know what Alexander “would have” or “would not have done.” This is, in fact, a process that has been handed down for several generations. For example, C. L. Murison, in an article that actually attempts of vindicate the actions of Darius, comments: “In general, we should remember that Alexander was an impulsive young man, whose dash and vigor frequently led him into trouble: the idea of him lurking amid narrow places like some suicidal Quintus Fabius Maximus, is so unlike the character we are familiar with [my emphasis], that we must reject it, unless it is proved to the hilt.”

A reading of that might lead one to believe Heckel’s been reading Pothos, perhaps even an occasional post of mine. And he is right.

He is even more correct with the following statement:

I am entirely in sympathy with G. L. Cawkwell, who remarks that “those who tend to think that Alexander the Great could make no mistakes and that his victories…followed as night follows day…should be left to their hero-worship.”

The quote, lifted from Cawkwell’s The Greek Wars (an excellent book which should be required reading...in my opinion), aptly sums up my view as well. To put it in its context:

Despite what Xenophon has to say (about Persian effminancy, degradation and feebleness in battle – mostly in his Education of Cyrus), the Persians were no push-over. There are those who tend to think that Alexander the Great could make no mistakes and that his victories over the [enemies sic] armies of Darius III followed as night follows day. They should be left to their hero-worship. Yet that great military genius allowed the King to get between himself and his base in 333 and had to rush back the way he had come and fight the battle of Issus for his survival. He did it with dash and won. Sober appraisal , however, makes one wonder whether Darius put Alexander in such a position by good luck or good management.

Next, a missive to Santa…

[Fiona]

And if anyone wants a peek you can read the Table of Contents and a short excerpt at:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/c ... 0521842471
.

Thank you for the link. I'd heard this was coming out, and was interested. I didn't think I'd be tempted to spend my money on anything by Waldemar 'Eumenes' Heckel, but I was pleasantly surprised, particularly by his statement that he wasn't going to do a 'blackwash'. His approach, of not simply re-telling the story, but concentrating on the political and military aspects, sounds interesting, too. But on the other hand, how can you shed light upon such a complex character while deliberately ignoring the personal and social elements? Heckel seems to think that such things are beneath his notice, and the proper preserve only of those he dismisses as hero-worshippers.
This makes me sad. His approach is valid, no question, but I would be a lot more inclined to buy his book if I could detect one word of acknowledgment that the response he calls hero-worship is just as valid a response to the source material as we have it, as any other.
Fiona

[Paralus]

But on the other hand, how can you shed light upon such a complex character while deliberately ignoring the personal and social elements? Heckel seems to think that such things are beneath his notice, and the proper preserve only of those he dismisses as hero-worshippers.

I think that is a misreading of the preface. I do not think he views those as "below his notice" at all. More that, as he states, this is not a "biography" and Plutarch's (and others') anecdotes are not what he is attempting to address. As he states, aspects of Alexander's personality are discussed in reference to matters that are under discussion.

Nor do I see that he would equate biographers who would include the anecdotal material about the breaking of Beucephalus etc as "hero worshippers". He will not provide "blow by blow" battle descriptions either, preferring to give his attention to the use of propaganda, political consequences and the like. I would not then go on to say that such descriptions are "below him" or the purview of "military buffs".

Waldemar "Eumenes" Heckel??!!

[jan]

I will know more when I finish reading the entire book, but so far I have liked the fact that he does not consider Alexander a "spoiled brat" and attributes great intelligence to the young boy King. I appreciated his descriptions of the different groups who comprise the army. He seems to comprehend the purpose of each varied group member, and notes the region from which these men are recruited, very helpful to me. He certainly gives Philip his due, and I appreciate that Philip's ancestory is well developed as well.

I believe that Heckel's real value is that Alexander becomes a bona fide person instead of a mere legend or mythical historical personality. He seems to grasp his authentic reality as a man.

[Fiona]

I think that is a misreading of the preface. I do not think he views those as "below his notice" at all. More that, as he states, this is not a "biography" and Plutarch's (and others') anecdotes are not what he is attempting to address. As he states, aspects of Alexander's personality are discussed in reference to matters that are under discussion.

Nor do I see that he would equate biographers who would include the anecdotal material about the breaking of Beucephalus etc as "hero worshippers". He will not provide "blow by blow" battle descriptions either, preferring to give his attention to the use of propaganda, political consequences and the like. I would not then go on to say that such descriptions are "below him" or the purview of "military buffs".

Waldemar "Eumenes" Heckel??!!

True, but he isn't scathing about the military buffs, is he? He simply states that he's not doing blow-by-blow coverage. But he's pretty scathing about hero-worshippers, and implies that they're incapable of appreciating Alexander's strategic brilliance.
Anyway, no matter - it was just the side-swipe about hero-worshippers that bothered me, I'm sure it's a very good book, and I hope you do get it for Christmas and enjoy reading it.
As for the Eumenes, well, Heckel is so antagonistic to Hephaistion in his 'Who's Who' that I concluded he must be some sort of descendant...
Fiona

[Paralus]

As for the Eumenes, well, Heckel is so antagonistic to Hephaistion in his 'Who's Who' that I concluded he must be some sort of descendant...
Fiona

Ahh, you see, I'd not known that any anti-Hephaestion tradition was down to a traducing by Eumenes. As a Greek among Macedonians, I rather suspect that Eumenes was familiar with being viewed as some sort of lower class person. Certainly, it seems, Ptolemy and Antigonus thought little of the "pest from the Chersonnese".

I'd suspect that, after Hephaestion's death and Alexander's shortly after, Eumenes had much more on his mind than Heph's lasting legacy. Specifically, Antipater, Craterus, Neoptiolemus and Antigonus.

[agesilaos]

Paralus, Fiona is merely referring to the attested quarrel between the two; she might well have picked Krateros. Hephaistion clearly suffered from his early death, no one had any love for him and as a deadman no one had any need to praise or fear him. Even Aristoboulos reports that he was 'feared'. A proper little Lvrenty Beria IMHO; or have I a hint of that Chersonese blood?

[amyntoros]

Paralus, Fiona is merely referring to the attested quarrel between the two; she might well have picked Krateros. Hephaistion clearly suffered from his early death, no one had any love for him and as a deadman no one had any need to praise or fear him. Even Aristoboulos reports that he was 'feared'. A proper little Lvrenty Beria IMHO; or have I a hint of that Chersonese blood?

Ah, but aren't you putting a spin of your own on Aristobulus' words (unless I’m missing or confusing quotes). I have the following:

Arrian VII.18.1-3 Moreover, Aristobulus records a story as follows. Apollodorus of Amphipolis, one of Alexander’s Companions, commander of the force Alexander left behind with Mazaeus the satrap of Babylon, after he had met Alexander on his return from India and observed that he was punishing severely the satraps appointed over various provinces, wrote to Pithagoras his brother, as he was one of those seers who prophesy from the flesh of victims, to prophesy about his own welfare. Pithagoras wrote in answer asking who it was that he [Apollodorus of Amphipolis] chiefly feared that he wanted the help of prophecy, and he replied that it was king himself and Hephaestion. Pithagoras then sacrificed first in regard to Hephaestion and, as the lobe could not be seen on the liver of the victim, he reported this, and sealing his letter sent it to Apollodorus from Babylon to Ecbatana, showing that he had nothing to fear from Hephaestion, as in a short time he would be out of their way. Apollodorus received this letter, Aristobulus says, on the day before Hephaestion died …

Alexander didn’t punish severely ALL the satraps in the west but only those who he considered had failed in their duties so I suspect that Apollodorus might have had some small reason to fear for himself upon Alexander's return. (The failure of the Babylonians to complete the removal of the earth mound in preparation for the rebuilding of the temple of Belus may have had something to do with his trepidation.) We know Hephaistion had previously been involved in administrative matters so I'm not unduly surprised at his inclusion above. However, it ought to be noted that Aristobulus records here only that Apollodorus feared Hephaistion.

Best regards,

[jan]

well, upon reading these comments I believe that Fiona is probably correct about Heckel's attitude towards Hephaestion. I am only in chapter six yet, but I just read something about Hephaestion's incompetence. He says the incompetent Hephaestion...and I wonder why on earth is he saying this? What makes him believe that Hephaestion is incompetent?

But on that same note, he has placed a footnote in this same chapter six, number 31, relating to the treatment of the adversaries at the battle at Sodiana Rock. When checking to see where he found this information about flogging and crucifixions, I found his editor to be incompetent because the footnote seems to make reference to Roxanne!! What the heck, I wanted to know which source told about Alexander flogging and crucifying his victims. .

[marcus]

But on that same note, he has placed a footnote in this same chapter six, number 31, relating to the treatment of the adversaries at the battle at Sodiana Rock. When checking to see where he found this information about flogging and crucifixions, I found his editor to be incompetent because the footnote seems to make reference to Roxanne!! What the heck, I wanted to know which source told about Alexander flogging and crucifying his victims. .

Hi Jan. It's at Curtius VII.11.28-29:

[28] Arimazes despaired of his situation, though it was not in fact hopeless, and came down to the Macedonian camp with his relatives and the foremost noblemen of his people. All of these Alexander ordered to be whipped and crucified right at the foot of the rock. [29] A large number of those surrendering were presented as a gift, together with a sum of captured money, to inhabitants of the newly-founded cities. Artabazus was left in charge of the rock and the area surrounding it.

ATB

[amyntoros]

But on that same note, he has placed a footnote in this same chapter six, number 31, relating to the treatment of the adversaries at the battle at Sodiana Rock. When checking to see where he found this information about flogging and crucifixions, I found his editor to be incompetent because the footnote seems to make reference to Roxanne!! What the heck, I wanted to know which source told about Alexander flogging and crucifying his victims. .

Adding a quick note of my own here. Heckel's editor is certainly not incompetent. One of the purposes of footnotes, as well as sometimes giving source references, is to add commentary. Footnote 31 in chapter six is placed in reference to the last sentence of the paragraph - specifically the unconditional surrender of the rock - and here Heckel chooses to inform us about his conclusions regarding whether or not Roxane was one of the captives taken at that time. Further to this; the subject matter included in footnotes is the choice of the author and is not subject to the desires of the reader. One may wish to see ancient source references for every single line of a book but realistically that would be tiresome for both the author and reader alike.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Hi Jan. It's at Curtius VII.11.28-29:

[28] Arimazes despaired of his situation, though it was not in fact hopeless, and came down to the Macedonian camp with his relatives and the foremost noblemen of his people. All of these Alexander ordered to be whipped and crucified right at the foot of the rock. [29] A large number of those surrendering were presented as a gift, together with a sum of captured money, to inhabitants of the newly-founded cities. Artabazus was left in charge of the rock and the area surrounding it.

Although I don't make a habit of questioning the ancient sources, Curtius is a bit suspect here. The Metz Epitome 18 (which I have reason to believe is following Cleitarchus on this) flatly contradicts Curtius, saying that his own supporters slew Ariomazes, then surrendered to Alexander, who pardoned them for killing him. It is not impossible that Curtius has misunderstood this complex outcome in his source. Otherwise he is using some obscure source or being a bit inventive in support of his theme of Alexander's degenerating character.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Although I don't make a habit of questioning the ancient sources, Curtius is a bit suspect here. The Metz Epitome 18 (which I have reason to believe is following Cleitarchus on this) flatly contradicts Curtius, saying that his own supporters slew Ariomazes, then surrendered to Alexander, who pardoned them for killing him. It is not impossible that Curtius has misunderstood this complex outcome in his source. Otherwise he is using some obscure source or being a bit inventive in support of his theme of Alexander's degenerating character.

But if the Metz Epitome is following Cleitarchus on this then I have to wonder when did Cleitarchus become the most dependable of historians that we should trust his account above all others when there is a contradiction in the story?

To quote Jona Lendering on Livius:

Summing up, we can say that Cleitarchus' work combined vivid descriptions, eyewitness accounts and a dark psychological portrait of Alexander. He also delights in fantastic tales and he sometimes sacrificed historical reliability to keep the story entertaining and to stress the psychological development. Therefore, Cleitarchus' History of Alexander contains many errors (some serious).

Best wishes,