Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth

This book is a gem, in large because the analysis of the "greatness" of Alexander in the fifth and closing chapter is designed to generate thought, debate and ideas for every student of history. "The impact of Alexander on the Mediterranean world has always been a subject for debate," Cantor notes, and proceeds to add provocatively to that debate. Alexander, like Achilles, Caesar, King Arthur, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, embodies the spirit of the times and the people of their eras. Alexander and Achilles were heroic; Caesar and Arthur were innovators; Lincoln and Churchill gave words to enhance the decency of great nations. Lincoln, to cite an example, did not invent democracy in America. However, when he defined democracy as government "of the people, by the people, for the people", he greatly sharpened and enhanced already existing attitudes. Alexander did the same in his time; he did not invent war, but he set an ideal seldom matched and thus established the warrior ideal for much of the Mediterannean. King Arthur does the same with his round table; Churchill gives credit to the British people for stopping Hitler. Now, consider George Bush with his Texas swagger and flight suit while strutting across the deck of an aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished" as if he were a warrior. Alexander, in contrast to the coddled and well-protected life of Bush, survived numerous serious wounds acquired while leading his troops from the front. Whether it's Bush or Clinton or Reagan, there's a vast difference between Alexander and the perspiration and spin of today's leaders. As Canton aptly shows, it's why "the Great" title is retired. Intended or not, there are numerous subtle parallels between ancient and modern events in the Near and Middle Easts. Alexander was successful because he responded immediately and brilliantly to local events rather than try to rule from afar; instead of being an ideologue, he worshipped every God he met along the route of his conquests. Because he was handicapped by "faulty intelligence," when he reached Afghanistan and India he realized it was time to listen to his troops, then "cut and run". Why? To quote Cantor, "One of the old soldiers, a man named Coenis . . . . gave the speech of his life, ending with these words: 'Sir, if there is one thing above all others a successful man should know, it is when to stop'. Instead of trying to stay the course, Cantor says "Alexander sulked for two days but then tried to find a way to make this defeat appear to be a victory." Cantor offers an intriguing psychological assessment of Alexander; not only was he "the supreme exemplar of that old pagan world" but he also knew how to sulk and then accept the will of his troops. Perhaps that is why there are no modern Alexanders; today we tend to look at his heroism, courage, strength and vision but overlook his ability to sulk. It's a masterful biography, not merely because of what i

This is a great little history, and I hope the publishing industry gives us more of them. It's amazing how much of history was created by teens and twentysomethings. Alexander and his army were like a punk rock band gone wild. He drinks and debauches his way through half a continent. He must have had extraordinary health given the punishing environment and the many battle wounds. He is a master builder and does have a command of battle strategy (if not his army). I found the comparisons to Ceasar and the speculation of how Alexander would have done against the Roman army thought provoking. Not mentioned is that Ceasar earned the support of his army, Alexander just expected it and was unable to keep it. There is an interesting the analysis of his "greatness" at the end and a description of the other major biographical works.

This book should be evaluated for what it was intended to be by the author, and not for what it was not! This is a very broad summary intended for laypeople, not a detailed book for professional historians (nor even, really, for students studying the period). If you want to go much deeper, do read Robin Lane Fox's biography, which is scholarly. As such, I think it did a good job. It is written with a lightness of style - almost journalistic - and can be read in its entirety easily in a day. Initially, I found the anachronistic comparisons to modern events (e.g., Iraq War) a little intrusive and grating, but later I thought: why not? After all, if it helps to make ancient history have some relevance for the reader and encourages the lay-reader to learn more about the past then, so be it, the end justifies the means. I have now enjoyed several of Norman Cantor's history books, partly for their light, summary nature, and partly for his easy and engaging writing style. They well suit non-fictional reading at the end of a hard day's work, when concentaration levels are, inevitably, not at their peak. I encourage the reader to try more of Norman Cantor's books if you liked this one, or to try this one if you liked other books of his. For what it was intended to be, an interesting and engaging book.

As other commentators have noted, this book is more of a survey of the history about and around Alexander the Great than an original contribution to scholarship and knowledge. Taken on that basis, this is a good book - I would not hesitate to use this as part of a general survey course on ancient history for a lower-undergraduate or advanced-secondary level, as the writing is clear, accessible and flows easily from topic to topic. Perhaps the one drawback I see with regard to the text arrangement is that it probably makes more sense to those who already have a background in the history than to those who do not. The ancient world from pre-history Greece and Persia to the time of Alexander (over a thousand years) collapsed into a mere thirty pages will be a difficult task for anyone. In the first chapter, Cantor sets the stage by giving a rather sweeping account of the history of the 'known' world leading up to this time, together with a brief account of some of the legacies of Alexander and Hellenism, and a few details about modern archaeological and historical research in the area. The subsequent chapters see Alexander developed more fully, both in terms of military and political strategist as well as in terms of psychological being. Alexander was both a product of his world as well as the maker of his world in many ways. Cantor contrasts Alexander the Great with Julius Caesar, often likened and compared, developing an Alexander who is much more the military purist than a political creature (more of a Patton than an Eisenhower, in modern terms). Cantor's last chapter develops the aftermath and the legacies of Alexander much more fully. This includes his actual influence on nations and military issues as well as his heroic and mythic figure that continues to inspire in different directions up to the present day. This book is not a deep analysis. One commentator describes the book as a disappointment, given Cantor's ability and reputation, but I have to wonder if that was his intent. This looks and feels like a general survey, intended to serve as some historical underpinning for those whose only likely exposure to Alexander comes from Hollywood films. Are there better books on Alexander? The answer is certainly, yes. Are those better books as accessible, as likely to be read by the general reader? I leave that question for the reader to decide. Given the option, I would award this text three-and-a-half stars; it has good writing, good material, and raises good questions (which might prompt readers to read further in other sources). There are several points at which more explanation or development would have been helpful.