Alexander the Great Failure- John D Grainger

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Kit
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Alexander the Great Failure- John D Grainger

Post by Kit »

Has anybody read J D Grainger's recently released book entitled 'Alexander the Great Failure' (a nice play on words if nothing else!)? I'm trying to decide whether to make it a post Xmas purchase.

It seems to be a critical look at Alexander as a 'Macedonian King' e.g. didn't he do a bad job dying without an adult heir and allowing the Macedonian Empire (so painstakingly built by his father) to fall apart almost immediately upon his death.

Regards,
Kit

Forever to seek, to strive, to overcome.
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Sounds Like another obscure Author trying to make a name for himself.

Alexander did leave a son and to be realistic a more suitable multi bread son than a pure Macedonian to rule such a vast expanse of culture and nations. Only did the silly Author forget to mention that Cassander apropriately had the boy Poisoned as i believe he poisoned Alexander.

And Excuse my ignorance but how could Alexander stop the petty Macedonian Fighting and breaking up his empire. Let alone Melting his Coffin down for gold etc etc.After he was dead. It was pretty obvious early on that his Macedonian Generals were not happy with the way Alender wanted his Empire.

Maybe the silly author meant Alexander return as a poltergiest to stop his dozy Succesors. I dont really think Alexander failed at anything he intended to do. I dont class the Indian return as a defeat as I alone maybe think by then Alexander knew it was time to turn back.

kenny
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

jasonxx wrote:Sounds Like another obscure Author trying to make a name for himself.
He isn't, though. He's written probably the most authoritative book on Seleucus since Bevan's "House of Seleucus" in the 1940s(?).

Anyway, let's not make assumptions until we've read the book, which I intend to do fairly soon (once I've got through the huge pile of unread tomes beside my bed).

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

didn't he do a bad job dying without an adult heir
Even if ATG had sired a child at 20, they would not have been an adult heir..but rather a 12 y/o child at best. One whose family would have come into conflict with al the same people who fought across Asia for decades for their piece of the pie. I can't imagine that whoever Alexander's Macedonian bride might have been...her family wouldn't have come into conflict with the other power holders. Which is perhaps why he didn't marry young in the first place.

I haven't read the book so I can't say anything about it, but the Argead inheritance was always shaky, his father taking the throne from the very young Amyntas IV.

That ATG "failed" to see any child to adulthood was just "thoughtlessness on his part"... :roll: He could have been killed at any point along the campaign.


I did check out the description at Amazon:
Alexander the Great's empire stretched across three continents and his achievements changed the nature of the ancient world. But for all his military prowess and success as a conqueror, John Grainger argues that he was one of history's great failures. Alexander's arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death; and he was personally culpable for the failure of his imperial enterprise. For Alexander was king of a society where the king was absolutely central to the well-being of society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded, something which had happened every generation for two centuries before him, and happened again when he died. For the good of his people, Alexander needed an adult successor, and be both refused to provide one, and killed off any man who could be seen as one. The consequence was fifty years of warfare after his death and the destruction of his empire.
The work of Philip II, Alexander's father, in extending and developing the kingdom of the Macedonians was the foundation for Alexander's career of conquest. Philip's murder in 336 BC brought Alexander to the kingship in the first undisputed royal succession on record. Alexander's campaigns achieved unparalleled success and the young king of Macedonia, leader of the Greeks, Pharaoh of Egypt, became Great King of Persia at the age of twenty five. In this authoritative book John Grainger explores the foundations of Alexander's empire and why it did not survive after Alexander's untimely death in 323 BC.
I suppose that his "failure" could be likened to Henry V's...but then history is what it is. His supposed adult son could have been another Henry VI...I know the little prince wasn't an adult, but even as an adult he was not the same as hs father.

Personally, we can not second guess what might have happened. There was certainly no loyalty to the Argead line (except perhaps for Eumenes), as every single one of them wound up dead at the hands of their subjects (or their own children). The Successors had seen too much opportunity to keep a great empire together. What better for them than be kings of their own kingdoms, than the subjects of another.

The world would not be what it is today if Alexander had lived to see his son follow him, for better or worse. So failure might be a relative term. Failure for whom?

I'd like to add that I'd give my eye teeth for his books on the Seleucids, but other than perusing them through Google books I haven't had the pleasure....I don't have 300.00 to 350.00 plus per book to blow... :cry:
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Hello from Afghanistan. :)
athenas owl wrote:Even if ATG had sired a child at 20, they would not have been an adult heir..but rather a 12 y/o child at best. One whose family would have come into conflict with al the same people who fought across Asia for decades for their piece of the pie. I can't imagine that whoever Alexander's Macedonian bride might have been...her family wouldn't have come into conflict with the other power holders.
You took the words right out of my mouth.

Let's say Alexander provided an heir prior to leaving for Asia. Like you say, what would have become of him when Alexander perished young? Olympias was hardly able to reconcile herself with Antipater; I doubt her relationship would have been any better with the generals who survived Alexander, heir or not. I doubt the boy would have fared any better; after all, Alexander IV didn't in Cassander's hands.

IF Alexander died as a result of complications associated with his lifestyle*, I would consider that a "failure" on his part... but not so much one as to earn the label of "one of history's great failures."

* It should be notes that I take stories of his drinking bouts with as much a grain of salt as I do harems with a staff numbering in the hundreds, casualty figures ranging in the six figures, and tents housing thousands of dinner guests.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Phoebus wrote:* It should be notes that I take stories of his drinking bouts with as much a grain of salt as I do harems with a staff numbering in the hundreds, casualty figures ranging in the six figures, and tents housing thousands of dinner guests.
Interesting comments. Personally I find the stories of Alexander's drinking bouts unremarkable given the plentiful evidence for heavy alcohol consumption amongst the Macedonians. And I can't see how a harem of 365 women could have anything less than hundreds of servants. As for the tents - is there any source evidence for a tent which housed thousands of dinner guests? Alexander's was said to hold a hundred couches which is quite conceivable if one thinks of the dining area as more like a pavilion. But yes, the casualty figures are high, and so are the figures given for the Persian army in general and here I do agree that they should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt.

You're in Afghanistan now? I thought you were living in Italy? :shock: :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

The nature of my work tends to take me to both Afghanistan and Iraq on a recurring basis. This time, I will be here for about 7-8 months (which is much better than what many others have to deal with). On the bright side, it also gave me a more-or-less long-term assignment to Italy, near my family in Hellas. :)

As for everything else, well, again, I take such accounts with a grain of salt. Alexander died at 32 years old after suffering incredible privations and several injuries--at least one of which almost resulted in his death. Given the many embellishments found in the extant record, I have always found the legendary drinking bouts described near the tail-end of his life to be a bit too convenient--especially considering some of the sources they come from.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Phoebus wrote: Given the many embellishments found in the extant record, I have always found the legendary drinking bouts described near the tail-end of his life to be a bit too convenient--especially considering some of the sources they come from.
Buggered if I know why.

One needs only to go back to "legendary drinking bouts", somewhat earlier - one of which resulted in the death of Cleitus - to see that this was not unusual. Certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

Indeed Plutarch felt it neccesssary to excuse away Alexander's time over "the cups" by suggesting that it was only "conversation" that kept him till all hours - not the grog. Then he slips by telling us that he often slept in afterwards until midday or - worse - did not rise at all.

I think we all know what that indicates.

Arrian too apologises for his time over "the cups". Now, why do you think that might be? I'd suggest the primary sources indicated strongly that Alexander - like most Macedonians - liked the plonk.

Strike me pink! I do and I do not bear the wounds Alexander did.

Gods! Without Led Zeppelin, Slade and Deep Purple to retreat to, I reckon I'd have gotten on the turps.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote: As for the tents - is there any source evidence for a tent which housed thousands of dinner guests? Alexander's was said to hold a hundred couches which is quite conceivable if one thinks of the dining area as more like a pavilion.
Phylarchus describes Alexander's massive tent (as does Polyaenus 4.3.24) where his closest companions are gathered about him and feted (Athen 12.539E-F):
Moreover, the famous plane-trees of gold, even the golden vine under which the Persian kings often sat and held court, with its clusters of green crystals and rubies from India and other gems of every description, exceedingly costly though they were, appeared to be of less worth, says Phylarchus, than the expense lavished daily on all occasions at Alexander’s court. For his pavilion contained a hundred couches and was supported by fifty golden uprights. The canopies stretched over the upper part to cover the whole were elabo rately worked with gold in sumptuous embroideries. Inside, all round it, stood first of all five hundred Persians, Apple-bearers, with gay uniforms of purple and quince-yellow; after them bowmen to the number of a thousand, some dressed in flame-colour, others in crimson; but many, too, had mantles of dark blue. At the head of these stood five hundred Silver-Shields, Macedonians. In the centre of the pavilion was placed a golden chair, sitting on which Alexander held court with his bodyguard stationed close on all sides. Outside the tent the elephant-division was posted near in a circle with full equipment, also a thousand Macedonians in Macedonian uniform, next ten thousand Persians, and the large body, amounting to five hundred, who wore the purple; for Alexander had granted them the privilege of wearing this garment.
The historicity - if not neccessarily all the "debauchery" that interested Phylarchus - of it is probably solid. This from the fact that Peucestas seems intent on replicating the scene in Persis in 317 when he feats the satrapal army of Eumenes. He seats all the notable Macedonians about the statraps and generals (Eumenes, himself, Eudamus et al) then the former "companions" of Alexander and the Silver Shields. the Persian and Asian forces sit further out. I doubt he had the pavillion though.

The intent is obvious: to wrest control of the army from his rival by comporting himself as did Alexander who he'd so spectacularly saved in India. This will not have been missed by the Silver Shields, as they were involved - as Phylarchus relates - with the scene described. In the end, it did not work. Eumenes' forged letter relatiing the fiction that Polyperchon was on the way with a royal army carried the day.

As to failure, that is a relative thing. As a general and military tactician Alexander was an outstanding success. His tactics of relentless pursuit or enveloping and annihilation of enemy armies in pitched battle was, for the time, remarkable. Alexander destroyed armies.

As an empire builder he hardly rates with those he so consumately replaced. Compared to the Achaemenids he flashes across the east in the manner of a meteor. When he burned out, so too did his empire. With the Argead line sans a successor it fell to a group of feuding, grasping and cashed-up former bodyguards and marshals to fight to the bitter end over the unsecured spoils of ten years of conquering and killing.

And fight they did. In the end the lasting legacy of Alexander's conquests - after much blood settled the dust of the Diadochoi wars - was a group Greco-Macedonian monarchies whose main purpose was exploitation of the native populations for the benefit of a never terribly large elite.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
derek
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:47 pm
Location: Rhode Island USA

Post by derek »

I used to have my doubts about a tent large enough for a hundred couches, and then my company had a garden fete thing to celebrate the opening of a new building, and they hired a marquee. It was huge, and I could imagine Alexander's pavilion looking the same. A hundred couches with room out the back for his private quarters - no problem.

I watched the crew erect it, and they did it by hand, using pulleys but no machinery. I was interested enough that I researched it on Wikipedia afterwards. Look up "tent". Large "bail ring" tents existed way back, and pulleys were invented around the right time, so Alexander's pavilion was most likely a bail ring tent.

Don't know if this link will work, but here's a picture gallery of tents for hire. Look at the size of the bail ring tents near the bottom:

http://www.conventionaltents.com/gallery.htm

Derek
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Paralus wrote:As an empire builder he hardly rates with those he so consumately replaced. Compared to the Achaemenids he flashes across the east in the manner of a meteor. When he burned out, so too did his empire. With the Argead line sans a successor it fell to a group of feuding, grasping and cashed-up former bodyguards and marshals to fight to the bitter end over the unsecured spoils of ten years of conquering and killing.
And again, this is the portion of your analysis that I disagree with. You compare Alexander to the Achaemenids, but how is that fair?

Cyrus' true birth-date may never be conclusively arrived at; he likely had between 16 to 27 years more than Alexander to consolidate his position. How old was he when Cambyses II was born? That's another date that, IIRC, has not yet satisfactorily been determined.

Beyond that, as much detail as we lack from the overall Alexandrian history, how much more is missing from the formative years of the Achaemenid empire?

More to follow later... internet time is at a premium, and I have already skipped one other post I wanted to respond to. :(

Cheers to you all!
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

I recently bought Alexander the Great: Failure and intended only to skim through it right now because I'm currently reading several other books. I ended up, however, reading everything about Alexander's adulthood which was not as time-consuming as it might seem. Early Macedonian history up to the death of Philip takes up pages 1 through 66. Alexander's ascension to the throne through to his death and the immediate aftermath encompasses only 32 pages; the remainder, pages 99 through 188 (followed by a Conclusion), are post Alexander. This doesn't, of course, mean that the remainder of book isn't worth reading - or that there are not many further references to Alexander - and I will definitely tackle it at a later date, especially as I've been told by a fellow Pothosian that I need to expand my horizons somewhat! :wink:

As far as the section on Alexander is concerned, the emphasis is not so much on him having failed to see any child to adulthood but more on the failure of his imperial enterprise, most evident in pages 88 through 98. A couple of the most pertinent quotes follow:
After discussing Alexander's intent to invade Arabia (Page 92): A campaign was Alexander's standard response to difficulties, but it was hardly constructive. The empire was too big already, and had many problems needing to be tackled before more expansion was undertaken. For the king to go off on a long voyage – he intended to circumnavigate Arabia, which might take months – in the midst of these troubles meant that the problems would be worse when, or if he turned up again.

This behavior pattern had been visible even at the start of his kingship, in 336, when he had refused to marry and produce an heir in the two years before the start of the campaign. He was good at fighting, and clearly enjoyed it more than anything else, but he used it to evade responsibility. This was a failure to grow up. In many ways he was a perpetual adolescent; his superstition, impulsiveness, carelessness with money, extravagant grief over the death of Hephaistion, unwillingness to see that other work needed to be done, love of fighting, all show this. Whether he would ever have grown up is unclear; it would have needed a surrogate father to admonish and guide him. Antipater, coming fresh to him, might have been the man, if Alexander would listen. But neither got the chance.
Pages 92-93 … He was a superb military commander, a master of all the detail of warfare – logistics, planning, training, fighting – and capable of adapting his military methods to the most unexpected situations. He successfully conducted sieges, great battles, hill campaigns, contested river crossings and even defeated the nomads of the steppe on their own territory. He was ruthless, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

But this was only part of his duties. As king he had to be a politician and administrator as well. In the first he was clever and devious and determined, as ruthless as in his warfare, but liable to stir up trouble rather than solve problems. As an administrator, despite his capability in military logistics and planning, he was a failure, relying far too much on personal persuasiveness and force. This was his father's method, but something more was required. His legacy was thus exclusively his fame and his army, seductive lures for his successors, many of whom took a long time to appreciate what was missing.
Hmmm … the statement that Alexander relied "far too much on personal persuasiveness" could be read as an argument for a cult of personality, I suppose. I wouldn't disagree too much with that given the nature of the many discussions we have here on this forum over two thousand years after Alexander's death. :lol:

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by rocktupac »

He was good at fighting, and clearly enjoyed it more than anything else, but he used it to evade responsibility. This was a failure to grow up. In many ways he was a perpetual adolescent; his superstition, impulsiveness, carelessness with money, extravagant grief over the death of Hephaistion, unwillingness to see that other work needed to be done, love of fighting, all show this.
Using war to evade problems? It sounds contradictory. And this might be the first time I've heard Alexander accused of not 'growing up'. Alexander's religiosity and superstitious nature were not that out of the ordinary in the ancient world. Especially when we add into the equation that for a king, a slightly altered reading from Aristander might provide adequate propaganda. I'll agree that Alexander was impulsive, but to a degree. It's what made him Alexander, and ultimately, successful. But he calculated his risks, rather than blindly throwing himself or army into situations. The money problem: Philip was no more careful with his funds than Alexander. Did Philip never grow up either? And I wonder how this author would feel, how long he would grieve, if he were to lose the person closest to him? Probably not exactly on the same scale as Alexander, but this was Alexander: Great King and ruler of most of the (then) known world. Of course it is possible some of the ancient writers could have exaggerated at Alexander's grieving, not to make an excuse.

From what I've seen on the post, it looks like I'd disagree with a lot of what the author has to offer. I would still give it a read, understanding the importance of seeing both sides to the story, but I don't think he's too persuasive (at this point).
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Thanks for the quotations, Amyntoros - very interesting. It sounds as if Grainger is calling Alexander a failiure because of his failure to do things that he wasn't even trying to do, viz act in a totally grown-up and boring way, always do the sensible, cautious, rational thing.
Can just imagine Alexander shaking his head in wonder at the suggestion that an empire could ever be 'too big'.
You might as well call Mick Jagger a failure for never having had a 'steady job'.
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

derek wrote:I used to have my doubts about a tent large enough for a hundred couches, and then my company had a garden fete thing to celebrate the opening of a new building, and they hired a marquee. It was huge, and I could imagine Alexander's pavilion looking the same. A hundred couches with room out the back for his private quarters - no problem.
Derek
Imagine how long it would have taken to weave all that fabric by hand, too - it makes me wonder who made it and where, and how long in advance it had to be ordered.
Fiona
Post Reply