Available:*
Library | Call Number | Status |
---|---|---|
Searching... R.H. Stafford Library (Woodbury) | 921 ALEXANDER | Searching... Unknown |
Bound With These Titles
On Order
Summary
Summary
What can we learn from the stunning rise and mysterious death of the ancient world's greatest conqueror? An acclaimed biographer reconstructs the life of Alexander the Great in this magisterial portrait.
What can we learn from the stunning rise and mysterious death of the ancient world's greatest conqueror? An acclaimed biographer reconstructs the life of Alexander the Great in this magisterial revisionist portrait.
" An infectious sense of narrative momentum . . . Its energy is unflagging, including the verve with which it tackles that teased final mystery about the specific cause of Alexander's death."- The Christian Science Monitor
More than two millennia have passed since Alexander the Great built an empire that stretched to every corner of the ancient world, from the backwater kingdom of Macedonia to the Hellenic world, Persia, and ultimately to India-all before his untimely death at age thirty-three. Alexander believed that his empire would stop only when he reached the Pacific Ocean. But stories of both real and legendary events from his life have kept him evergreen in our imaginations with a legacy that has meant something different to every era- in the Middle Ages he became an exemplar of knightly chivalry, he was a star of Renaissance paintings, and by the early twentieth century he'd even come to resemble an English gentleman. But who was he in his own time?
In Alexander the Great , Anthony Everitt judges Alexander's life against the criteria of his own age and considers all his contradictions. We meet the Macedonian prince who was naturally inquisitive and fascinated by science and exploration, as well as the man who enjoyed the arts and used Homer's great epic the Iliad as a bible. As his empire grew, Alexander exhibited respect for the traditions of his new subjects and careful judgment in administering rule over his vast territory. But his career also had a dark side. An inveterate conqueror who in his short life built the largest empire up to that point in history, Alexander glorified war and was known to commit acts of remarkable cruelty.
As debate continues about the meaning of his life, Alexander's death remains a mystery. Did he die of natural causes-felled by a fever-or did his marshals, angered by his tyrannical behavior, kill him? An explanation of his death can lie only in what we know of his life, and Everitt ventures to solve that puzzle, offering an ending to Alexander's story that has eluded so many for so long.
Author Notes
Anthony Everitt was secretary-general of the Arts Council for Great Britain. He lives in London.
Reviews (4)
Publisher's Weekly Review
Ancient history expert Everitt (Cicero) attacks the young Macedonian king's astonishing conquests on three continents--Africa, Asia, and Europe--with relish. He starts off slow, with lots of background on family and context, but kicks things into gear when Alexander starts marching. Quick-thinking and able to learn from his mistakes, Everitt's Alexander displays a facility with tactics and strategy on a diverse array of battlefields as well as cleverly meshing Macedonian and local cultures to help him more nimbly govern his extensive empire. Everitt evenhandedly reminds readers of Alexander's failings, too, such as incredibly dysfunctional family dynamics and a penchant for self-aggrandizing claims (including being the offspring of a deity). Despite increasing paranoia and heavy drinking toward the end of his short life, the battle-scarred leader still commanded incredible loyalty from his army while understanding the boundaries of that loyalty. Everitt carefully discusses the controversy surrounding Alexander's premature death at age 32, including a convincing probable cause. This detailed account of the intriguing ancient military genius will fascinate military history readers eager to learn more about Alexander's motivation and the lifelong fearlessness that propelled him to near-mythic status. (Aug.)
Kirkus Review
Everitt (The Rise of Athens: The Story of the World's Greatest Civilization, 2016, etc.) shows us the genius of Alexander (356-323 B.C.E.) in a biography that reads as easily as a novel.In order to provide a full picture of this fascinating figure, the author seamlessly weaves in comments from friends and foes alike, including Demosthenes and Aristotle. Alexander was driven to conquer the impossible, whether it was fording a river or driving his army to India's "river ocean" to see the "world's edge." From the strong influence of his mother, Olympias, and father, Philip, who shifted the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean, he received a Greek education and the strength to take over the world. Philip was not cruel but certainly ruthless as he became leader of all Greece, exhibiting how self-government by the defeated could minimize expenses. After Philip's murder (with lots of suspects), the task of invading Persia fell to Alexander. He inherited a large, disciplined army, a wealthy empire, and Philip's military genius, allowing him to quell uprisings. He had no personal ambition but delighted in danger; he was audacious to the point of lunatic courage; he was devoted to his friends, respectful of enemies. Alexander's masterful engineers, artillery, and siege engines, along with his incredible luck, helped as he defeated the Persians time and again. He won the day against the Persians at the Granicus, which made him the leader of Asia Minor. Darius III escaped not once but twice, leading Alexander further into unknown territory. Moving into India, Alexander respected the different cultures and rejected racism, but he alternated chivalry with ferocity. Wartime massacres and total destruction of Thebes, Tyre, and Persepolis were cases of cruel necessity rather than gratuitous cruelty. Celebrations could turn into drunken quarrels and turned his men's respect into fear as they longed for home. Everitt has a wealth of anecdotes and two millennia of histories to work with, and he delivers and interprets them flawlessly.Nearly unparalleled insight into the period and the man make this a story for everyone. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Booklist Review
The West's greatest conqueror was taught by its greatest philosopher, but by no means did Alexander of Macedonia adhere to Aristotle's golden mean. He practiced conquest flat out, in the process fashioning methods of campaigning and securing territory that long survived him (his only peer, Genghiz Khan, was arguably his student). For 12 years he swept eastward from Greece to western India, not merely fighting the nations in his path but also controlling infighting and rebellion within his ranks (he put down would-be assassins with extreme prejudice) as well as partying to excess to keep troops, himself, and personal staff happy en route. Everitt's new, no-nonsense presentation of Alexander's life draws on the same collection of ancient sources all other biographers have consulted and avoids much re-interpretation. What happened is reported; why it happened, not so much. The particular problem for Alexandrian literature that the conqueror's father, Philip, is more intriguing is neither acknowledged nor suppressed. The only complaint some may have is that, sans spin, Everitt's prose can be demanding.--Ray Olson Copyright 2010 Booklist
Library Journal Review
Everitt (performing & visual arts, Nottingham Trent Univ., England; Cicero) continues his tradition of popular biographies of classical figures, this time featuring Alexander the Great (d. 323 BCE). The enjoyable and highly readable narrative spans the rise of Macedonia in the decades preceding Alexander's birth, the foundations built by his father, Philip II of Macedon, and the young conqueror's staggering successes across multiple continents. Frequent excerpts from classical authors and asides into Hellenic culture provide hooks for beginning readers to explore further. But other details will niggle at more serious readers of the period: Everitt struggles with the difference between xenia (guest-friendship rules enforced by Zeus) and philia (committed love felt between friends) and imputes too much explanatory power to erastes/eromenos relationships (a form of pederasty governed by nuanced social conventions). Yet the only significant flaw is Everitt's emphasis on speculating about Alexander's untimely and surprising death, which he considers compellingly, but his conclusions are ultimately neither novel nor substantiated better than those of other biographers, ancient or modern. VERDICT This work will appeal to fans of "Great Men" biographies, initiates in classical studies, and Everitt's numerous followers. [See Prepub Alert, 2/18/19.]--Evan M. Anderson, Kirkendall P.L., Ankeny, IA
Excerpts
Excerpts
CHAPTER 1 Goat Kings July 20 in the year 356 B.C. was a great day for Philip, and it marked a high point in his life so far. An intelligent and charismatic young man in his midtwenties, he had been king of Macedonia for the past two years. This was no sinecure, for he was surrounded by enemies. On the day in question, he was with his army on campaign; three messengers arrived one after another at his camp, each bearing wonderful news. The first rider brought a report from his trusty and talented general Parmenion, who had scored a victory against Macedonia's hereditary foes, the fierce, wild Illyrians. Then came a dispatch from southern Greece, where the Olympic Games were being held. Philip had entered a horse in one of the equestrian events. Only the very wealthy could afford the training and upkeep of two- or four-horse chariots, but financing a competitor in a four-and-a-half-mile horse race was costly enough. Philip's investment had paid off, for his mount came in first. The publicity would give a shine to his embattled reputation. But the last messenger arrived from Pella, his capital city. His wife Olympias had given birth to a healthy boy. The official seers or soothsayers said that the arrival of a son timed to coincide with these other successes augured well. When he grew up he would surely be invincible. For his father, there was the prospect of continuing the dynasty. The infant's name was to be Alexander. The baby crown prince faced the prospect of a daunting inheritance. He soon came to understand the realities of life and death as a member of the royal family. Being a clever and observant child, he remembered what he saw, and early lessons set the pattern of his adult attitudes. Here are some of the things he must have learned. The rocky and vertiginous geography of Macedon was hostile to good governance. The kingdom lay to the north of Mount Olympus, traditional home of Zeus and the other anthropomorphic divinities of the Hellenic pantheon. Its center was a fertile alluvial plain bordered by the wooded mountains of northern Macedonia. Its coastline was interrupted by the three-fingered peninsula of Chalcidice, which was peppered with Greek trading settlements. Macedonia was inhabited by unruly tribes which devoted their time and energy to stock-raising and hunting. They regularly moved sheep to and from grazing grounds--the lowlands in winter and the highlands in summer. They paid as little attention as possible to central authority. There was a myriad of villages and very few settled urban communities. The kingdom had one important raw material in almost limitless amounts--high-quality timber. Trade increased around the Aegean Sea, for travel or transport by sea was easier by far than to go by land. There was growing demand for merchant ships and war galleys and, it followed, for planking and oars. The tall trees of Macedonia were ideal for the purpose, unlike the stunted products of the Greek landscape. Pitch was also exported for caulking boats. Life, even for despots, was basic. The "father of history," Herodotus, who flourished in the fifth century b.c., writes of the primitive Macedonian monarchy. His contemporaries would have recognized the simplicity of the royal lifestyle, which had changed little over the centuries. The king lived in a farmhouse with a smoke hole in the roof, and the queen did the cooking. Herodotus, who probably visited Macedonia, commented: "In the old days ruling houses were poor, just like ordinary people." Up to Philip's day and beyond, the monarch adopted an informal way of life. At home he hunted and drank with his masculine Companions, or hetairoi. In the field he fought at the head of his army and was surrounded by a select bodyguard of seven noblemen, the somatophylaxes. His magnificent armor inevitably attracted enemy attacks. He mingled easily with his subjects and eschewed titles, being addressed only by his given name or "King." He had to put up with impertinence from the rank and file, just as Agamemnon, commander-in-chief at Troy, was obliged to hear out Homer's Thersites, a bowlegged and lame troublemaker, whose head was filled "with a store of disorderly words." In effect, a king like Philip was not an autocrat but a tribal leader, and his success or failure would largely depend on his performance in war and his magnanimity in peace. It was important that he be generous with personal favors, together with gifts of estates, money, and loot on campaign. Like Agamemnon, he was wise to consult his senior officers. Philip suited the role very well, ruling with a relaxed sense of humor on the surface and adamantine determination underneath. An anecdote epitomizes his style. At the end of one campaign, he was superintending the sale of prisoners into slavery. His tunic had ridden up, exposing his private parts. One of the prisoners claimed to be a friend of his father and asked for a private word. He was brought forward to the king and whispered in his ear: "Lower your tunic a little, for you are exposing too much of yourself the way you are sitting." And Philip said, "Let him go free, for I'd forgotten he is a true friend indeed." Little is known about a king's constitutional rights, but it seems that he was appointed by acclamation, at an assembly of citizens or of the army. Capital punishment of a Macedonian had to be endorsed by an assembly. But even if his powers were limited, a canny ruler could almost invariably get his way. The eldest son usually--but by no means always, as we shall see--inherited the throne. The philosopher Aristotle, whose father was official physician at the Macedonian court, was thinking about Philip when he observed that "kingship . . . is organized on the same basis as aristocracy: [by] merit--either individual virtue, or birth, or distinguished service, or all these together with a capacity for doing things." Successive rulers tried again and again, without conspicuous success, to impose their will on their untamable subjects. Then, toward the end of the sixth century b.c., the outside world intervened in the shape of Darius I, absolute lord of the vast, sprawling Persian empire, which stretched from the shores of the eastern Mediterranean to the gates of India, from Egypt to Anatolia. It has been well described as a desert punctuated by oases. There were well-watered plains, often more abundant than today, and arid wastes. Rugged mountain ranges and broad rivers made travel--and for that matter warfare--complicated and challenging. The empire was founded by Cyrus the Great in the middle of the fifth century b.c. The Persians were originally nomads, and even in their heyday as an imperial power, their rulers were always on the move between one or other of their capital cities, Susa, Persepolis, and Ecbatana. Their great throne halls were versions of the royal traveling tent in stone. Like all nomads, they were enthusiastic horsemen and their mounted archers were ferocious in battle. It has been estimated that the empire was home to about fifty million inhabitants. They came from a variety of cultures, spoke a medley of languages, and practiced a wide array of religions; wisely, they were governed with a light touch. However, if they rebelled against the central authority, they could only expect fire, rapine, and slaughter. In the last resort, the empire was a military monarchy. The Great King, as he was usually called, wanted to secure the northwestern corner of his wide domains by establishing an invulnerable frontier, the river Danube. This would entail subjugating Thrace, the large extent of land between the Balkan mountains, the Black Sea, and the Sea of Marmara. On today's political map, it includes portions of Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Excerpted from Alexander the Great by Anthony Everitt All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.