Alexander The Great: Journey To The End Of The Earth (2005) - Plot & Excerpts
Cantor provides a brief history of Alexander's campaign to conquer the world as well as some insight into the facets of his persona which created this drive to take on such a grand mission. Starting with his consolidation of the Greek city states under his rule (with the exception of those Spartans who bow to no one), Alexander proceeds to make an example of those who defy him. Those who defied him were were burnt to the ground with their women and children sold into slavery. After consolidating power and eliminating potential rivals at home, Alexander now began his quest into Persia. Battle after battle, Alexander emerged victorious -- due as much to his tactical brilliance as to Darius's poor military deployments. Though the Persian army was substantially larger, Darius only committed a portion of his forces to engage the Macedoniam army, and even then deployed them in cramped locations along muddy river banks where the many Persian chariots were rendered ineffective. I had some reason to question the veracity of the decisiveness of at least one major Macedonian victory in this book however. Cantor claims that at the Battle of Issus, which was perhaps the most important Battle in Alexander's march, the Persian army lost 70,000 men to a mere 280 men on the Macedonian side! Holy shit! Even accounting for the tactical brilliance of the MAcedonian general this lopsided victory astounded me and had me factcheck via Wikipedia, which suggests there were only 20,000 casualties from Persia to 7,000 losses from Macedonia at the Battle of Issus, which seems more believable to me. However I don't have access to the book quoted by wikipedia so it's hard for me to judge which version is really true. I really wish Cantor had spent some time explaining how the hell Alexander's army managed to kill so many while only losing 280 men, because that fact on its own strains credulity. A book detailing a march of conquest across almost 12,000 miles really needs some form of illustrated maps which was also sorely lacking from this book. Most non-historians (me included) probably don't have a strong grasp of the locations of ancient cities which have long since been renamed. There was one map in the beginning showing the scope of Alexander the Great's empire, but additional maps would have been invaluable, showing the direction of the marches East and his perilous return back West so that readers can visualize the locations of key engagements and the enormous scope of this quest to conquer the world. Aside from the above mentioned flaws which were major, but not fatal, this book gives a short and informative guide to one of the greatest military commanders in history.
Homer 800BC honor and culture, athens the democratic republic with noisy politics as today, sparta the military state, the faults of hubris pride arrogance, Socrates-Plato-Aristotle-Alexander, reason over emotion, why believe what believe-socratic method, Plato dialogues the academy for science and philosophy, snake woman and abuse of 13 year old boys, Alexandria of 750K under water, jews were strong and dominant influence then and till 400AD, Caesar to Gaul move to politics, Phillip loved and Alex feared, no watering of wine, read mind of opponents-strategy, first PR dept, Babylon of 350BC with 12 mile circumference 270' walls hanging gardens, 359BC birth to 33 years, perhaps clinically insane with wine and malaria, 750K killed, 500K slavery, Macedonia, pagan pre-christian.
What do You think about Alexander The Great: Journey To The End Of The Earth (2005)?
Ancient cultures have been my thing since i began to read History books, I was fascinated by the Heroism and incongruous character of the Greeks. I suppose this was also an off-shoot from my great interest in Ancient Egypt. During my first year at the university, Norman Cantor's "Inventing the Middle Ages" was introduced to me by a particularly erudite English professor. Since then, I've ben trying to obtain copies of his books (few are sold in local bookstores, or none at all). Cantor's writing style is suitable for both high school and college students, or those making a transition from high school to college. His language is compact and easy to understand, yet it doesn't compromise the information imparted.
—Zeny May Dy Recidoro
A textbook or scholarly writing on Alexander the Great. A bio and an attempt to answer the question: was he great? It would have helped if the author defined what it means to be great and hence create a measuring stick. He doesn't do that. He simply summarizes why he may or may not be considered great. Again, whatever that may be.I didn't find anything new in this text.What I found most interesting was the impact of christianity on modern western society and how that frames our views on the Greeks of that era.
—James Piper
Several reviews have criticized this book for adding nothing new to the field of Alexander scholasticism. To them, I would counter with this: I wanted a brief overview of who Alexander was and what he did. This book was exactly that, plus an excellent summation at the end of Alexander's influence on history. If Cantor has extrapolated or inferred at a few points, I'm fine with that. I didn't come here for exhaustive minutia -- I have other books on Alexander tagged for deeper reading. Rather, Cantor paint's the Greek world and its struggle with Persia in very broad strokes, then places a very human and fallible Alexander within it. He balances the personal and military aspects of Alexander's life quiet effectively. For a short work, Cantor covers a lot of ground with a style that is as intelligent as it is accessible.
—William Winkle
