Book Club: Conquest and Empire
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:29 pm
Prologue
OK, here goes! I’ll just post some initial thoughts and impressions, and can go into more detail if the same points have attracted anyone else’s attention.
First of all, then, I’d like to say that I am impressed with Bosworth’s style, he writes in a lively and engaging fashion. That always helps! I liked his line:
“The face of the world was changed within a decade.”
That seems to sum up Alexander’s achievements rather neatly.
It is reassuring that he seems to be aiming for even-handedness in his assessments, as he notes that Alexander has been alternately “eulogised and excoriated”.
On ‘The Legacy of Philip’
His section on the legacy of Philip was a good broad sweep of useful background, and leaves me in no doubt as to the extent of Philip’s awesome achievements, except for one little niggle – how do we know that Macedon was in such a poor state when Philip inherited it? Bosworth makes it sound as if the place was without form and void, with darkness moving upon the face of the deep, before Philip licked it into shape. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence cited for the state of Macedon pre-Philip, which makes me wonder if Archelaus, for one, isn’t being hard done-by, and also if Philip’s achievements aren’t being played up as a preliminary to playing Alexander’s down.
On evidence, and Note 3 about the trierarchs
Talking of evidence, I was rather surprised by Note 3, which says, “Note the list of trierarchs….the most brilliant, Perdiccas and Craterus, were from Orestis.”
I always thought you were supposed, in academic writing, to provide evidence for any statement like this. This sweeping statement, a personal judgment, is tucked away in a note, with no justification whatever. Who else would say that Perdiccas and Craterus were the most brilliant? I think Ptolemy and Lysimachus, not to mention Leonnatus, Hephaistion, Eumenes and Nearchus, all of them also trierarchs, might have something to say about that!
On ‘The Young Alexander’
On the very first page, Bosworth noted that “we may not go beyond the material at our disposal” and also that “Alexander, the man, will always elude us”. He sounds as if he is sorry about this, and yet he seems to be not making full use of the material at our disposal. He is writing about the young Alexander, yet he makes scant use of Plutarch, who is full of illuminating anecdotes. Clearly he does not disregard Plutarch as a source entirely, because he does use some of it, but this selective picking and choosing makes me uneasy.
On ringlets
This bit made me fume! “His hair, clustered in ringlets, was thrown back from the forehead in a central parting…”
Now, as any woman knows, a ringlet is deliberately contrived, either by rags or by curlers. It is not the same thing as a curl, which can be and often is, natural. Either Bosworth knows nothing about hair-styling, in which case he is guilty only of the careless use of words, or he is being subtlely demeaning, implying that Alexander deliberately put his hair in ringlets. Why would Bosworth do that? I am feeling rather wary, now.
And why would Alexander do that, when every representation we have of him shows clearly that his hair fell in natural waves or curls? I don’t doubt that he could be vain of his appearance and doubtless always wished to look his best, but to imply that a man would deliberately do his hair in ringlets – unless he is an Orthodox Jew – is pretty insulting and almost an accusation of femininity.
Well, a small point, maybe, but even a straw may show which way the wind blows. Looking forward to reading others’ comments!
Fiona
OK, here goes! I’ll just post some initial thoughts and impressions, and can go into more detail if the same points have attracted anyone else’s attention.
First of all, then, I’d like to say that I am impressed with Bosworth’s style, he writes in a lively and engaging fashion. That always helps! I liked his line:
“The face of the world was changed within a decade.”
That seems to sum up Alexander’s achievements rather neatly.
It is reassuring that he seems to be aiming for even-handedness in his assessments, as he notes that Alexander has been alternately “eulogised and excoriated”.
On ‘The Legacy of Philip’
His section on the legacy of Philip was a good broad sweep of useful background, and leaves me in no doubt as to the extent of Philip’s awesome achievements, except for one little niggle – how do we know that Macedon was in such a poor state when Philip inherited it? Bosworth makes it sound as if the place was without form and void, with darkness moving upon the face of the deep, before Philip licked it into shape. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence cited for the state of Macedon pre-Philip, which makes me wonder if Archelaus, for one, isn’t being hard done-by, and also if Philip’s achievements aren’t being played up as a preliminary to playing Alexander’s down.
On evidence, and Note 3 about the trierarchs
Talking of evidence, I was rather surprised by Note 3, which says, “Note the list of trierarchs….the most brilliant, Perdiccas and Craterus, were from Orestis.”
I always thought you were supposed, in academic writing, to provide evidence for any statement like this. This sweeping statement, a personal judgment, is tucked away in a note, with no justification whatever. Who else would say that Perdiccas and Craterus were the most brilliant? I think Ptolemy and Lysimachus, not to mention Leonnatus, Hephaistion, Eumenes and Nearchus, all of them also trierarchs, might have something to say about that!
On ‘The Young Alexander’
On the very first page, Bosworth noted that “we may not go beyond the material at our disposal” and also that “Alexander, the man, will always elude us”. He sounds as if he is sorry about this, and yet he seems to be not making full use of the material at our disposal. He is writing about the young Alexander, yet he makes scant use of Plutarch, who is full of illuminating anecdotes. Clearly he does not disregard Plutarch as a source entirely, because he does use some of it, but this selective picking and choosing makes me uneasy.
On ringlets
This bit made me fume! “His hair, clustered in ringlets, was thrown back from the forehead in a central parting…”
Now, as any woman knows, a ringlet is deliberately contrived, either by rags or by curlers. It is not the same thing as a curl, which can be and often is, natural. Either Bosworth knows nothing about hair-styling, in which case he is guilty only of the careless use of words, or he is being subtlely demeaning, implying that Alexander deliberately put his hair in ringlets. Why would Bosworth do that? I am feeling rather wary, now.
And why would Alexander do that, when every representation we have of him shows clearly that his hair fell in natural waves or curls? I don’t doubt that he could be vain of his appearance and doubtless always wished to look his best, but to imply that a man would deliberately do his hair in ringlets – unless he is an Orthodox Jew – is pretty insulting and almost an accusation of femininity.
Well, a small point, maybe, but even a straw may show which way the wind blows. Looking forward to reading others’ comments!
Fiona