Alexander the Great Historiography

[limeyman25]

G'day everyone. I'm a student in Australia researching a major work for my final year, having chosen to study Alexander the Great, I stumbled across this site!

The subject of my major work will be the histriography of Alexander the Great and I was wondering if anyone could suggest some historians worth discussing (ie. historians with explicable bias, conflicting views etc.) in my work.

There seems to be a glut of information (at least online) covering the Ancient Historians, but I'm finding it hard to discover any information on more recent historians.

Any help would be appreciated and thanks in advance!

[marcus]

The most commonly mentioned in this respect, as sort of "fathers" of respective interpretations, include W.W. Tarn, Wilcken, E. Badian. More recently opinion is divided between the "old-style" heroisers, such as N.G.L.Hammond, and the revisionists (the larger camp) such as A.B.Bosworth (and I.Worthington, but Worthington is a special case because his approach is almost too hysterical).

There are a number of very good overviews of the older historians and their views - in almost any decent book on Alexander. After that, my advice would be to take a few key incidents (the Philotas Affair and the Pages' Conspiracy come to mind immediately, as does the inevitable "Legacy of Alexander" question) and look at how various historians treat them.

ATB

[smittysmitty]

Hi limetman25,


I think a great essay/research could be on the preponderance of modern historians attempting to use Homeric parallels to explain Macedons cultural and social existence. I donGÇÖt think IGÇÖve read a modern historian who in some shape or form does not make such a comparison. IGÇÖd love to do something on that basis, indeed one day I will, LoL.

Time these moderns become accountable for dishing out such rubbish.


Cheers!

[limeyman25]

Thanks a lot for the help guys, I must admit I didn't know if I'd get a response or not

I'm about half an hour into Michael Wood's 'In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great' and I'm really enjoying it. I'm just beginning to think about how to classify him (Michael Wood)...

Thanks again everyone

[Paralus]

I'm about half an hour into Michael Wood's 'In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great' and I'm really enjoying it. I'm just beginning to think about how to classify him (Michael Wood)...

Tour guide extraordinaire. Historian? Not quite. Fascinating retracing of one hell of a journey of conquest though...

[marcus]

Paralus, you said:

Tour guide extraordinaire. Historian? Not quite.

Now, although some of the history is a bit suspect in the series, we shouldn't be too harsh on Michael Wood. For a start, he is a historian, even though (if I recall correctly) his specialism is Medieval history. Secondly, he made the series for a general audience, and I can think of many, many so-called history programmes which have presented much shakier history than he does in "Footsteps". Thirdly, the programme is a travelogue, rather than a history programme.

ATB

[marcus]

Dear all,

I have split off the discussion of Homeric parallels into a new thread, called ... well ... "Homeric parallels". We can continue discussing historiography in this thread, and discuss the Homeric stuff in a different one.

Cheers

[Paralus]

Now, although some of the history is a bit suspect in the series, we shouldn't be too harsh on Michael Wood. For a start, he is a historian, even though (if I recall correctly) his specialism** is Medieval history. Secondly, he made the series for a general audience, and I can think of many, many so-called history programmes which have presented much shakier history than he does in "Footsteps". Thirdly, the programme is a travelogue, rather than a history programme.
ATB

Oh bugger! Yes I s'pose that's just a little bitchy. It narks me when a show is presented as "history" and then proceeds to get some of it wrong.

Don't get me wrong: I quite liked it. It was - is - a marvellous travelogue and does an exceedingly fine job of illustrating the wheres, hows and - more especially - the how "bloody difficults" of the imperial grand adventure.

**"Speciality" Marcus! Bad boy!

[limeyman25]

Me again, just a quick update.

I wandered into my local Uni library and looked for more books on my topic. Amongst the books I found was "Alexander the Great; A Reader" by Ian Worthington.

I was only in the library for a couple of hours, and (after flicking through other books, making notes etc.) I ended up reading a dozen pages or so. It seems like a pretty good analyasis of the ancient sources (both primary and secondary).

Has anyone come across this book? Opinions?

Cheers,

limeyman25

[marcus]

**"Speciality" Marcus! Bad boy!

Not at all. In fact, "specialism" was an accurate use:

spe-+cial-+ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spsh-lzm)
n.
Concentration of one's efforts in a given occupation or field of study.
A field of specialization.

ATB, in pedantic mode ...

[marcus]

Hi "limeyman",

Regarding "Alexander the Great: A Reader" by Ian Worthington -

Has anyone come across this book? Opinions?

It's a good resource overall, and it does very well to set out some of the main topics, issues and problems in Alexander history. Where I feel it slightly falls down - and Worthington admits this in his introductions - is that quite a few of the articles are rather old, as more recent ones are much more expensive to get rights to. So it doesn't really contain the most up-to-date work on Alexander. Having said that, most of the articles contained in the book are 'standards', and so should be read anyway ... it's just that nowadays one should also read the more up-to-date stuff as well.

Certainly the stuff on the ancient sources is good - fairly standard stuff. I don't remember what Worthington has to say about Alexander historiography (and I'm too lazy to reach it down from the shelf to check) - however, if you read some of the articles and excerpts in the book (esp. for instance, those by Tarn and Badian), you will get a fairly good idea where at least some of the 'modern' scholars are coming from!

ATB

[Paralus]

G'day Marcus!

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

"Specialism": refer "specialist".

It goes on to note that "specialism" is a "derivative". A quaint English way of saying that my American cousins failed to recall the words "specialist/speciality" and likely added the "ism" - as they are wont to do at times. A bit like the fondness for "ability" or "est": that lure has good castability (translation - that lure casts very well); he has the winningest smile (translation - he has the most winning smile).

A cheeky Paralus in pedantic mode. More likely this: old English/History teachers never die, they simply become pedants.

[marcus]

I'm not surprised if the OED says that, but I'm not sure if I agree that saying it's "derivative" is as "spinned" as you suggest.

Chambers Dictionary (UK version) says:

n. specialism (devotion to) some particular study or pursuit. ... n speciality or N Am specialty the particular characteristic skill, use, etc of a person or thing; a special occupation or object of attention

Anyway - semantic pedantry isn't really the point here, I hope. But I would point out that I was pedantic in my youth, too.

ATB

[limeyman25]

G'day again everybody. My research has been going fairly well, so far as categorizing differing historians in terms of general opinions about Alexander. What I am having problems with is researching historians backgrounds.

After a quick look at the local and university libraries, I decided the internet was probably my best bet. The only resource worth mentioning was found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rrice/190321.html

Droysen, whose 19th Century distaste for Napoleon plastered Philip in his big book in the 1870's.

a) But who liked Alexander because Alexander shared his own interest (as an outsider) in Greek culture and civilization.

b) Was an avowed monarchist (a good thing to be in 1870's Germany!) and wasn't out to criticize a king who benefitted his own people...

c) And a devout protestant who believed that Alexander's career had done a great deal to prepare the world for Christianity. Before you think that's silly--why is the New Testament written in Greek?

d) Droysen was also the first, but not the last, to take Alexander's efforts to fuse the Macedonians and Persians (back) into a single people (under him) as an effort to unite the world in universal brotherhood in a process called "reconciliation and fusion."

7. Enter two more Germanic Scholars (both Austrians) of the Next Generation , both of whom had very intersting encounters with their nation's world-conqueror.

a) Fritz Schachermayer published his _Indogermannen und Orient_ in 1944. Who was running Austria in 1944?

(1) The theme of the book was that Alexander, the _Ubermensch_ (via Friedrich Nietzsche), had asserted the rightful mastery of the Indo-Germanic (Aryan) Herrenvolk over the inferior (Semitic) peoples of the East.

(2) It gets better--by trying to mix the Persians with his Aryans, however, Alexander committed two of the worst sins in Nazi morality: Rossenschande und Blutschande, race- guilt and blood guilt resulting from ethnic and genetic pollution. The penalty of the Nazi Nuremburg tribunal for a German having intercourse with a Jew was death.

(3) In 194_9_ Schachermayer wrote his second book, Alexander: Ingenium und Maacht," which completely ignored his first book. Alexander had started out well-intentioned, a great creative genius, corrupted by absolute power into the ravening murderous monster he became. Those around him were forced to endure him like a natural disaster.

(4) Schachermayer published some fine material since, and on other subjects, but he was never forgiven. He died in 1993, still on the outs as a scholar.

b) Enter another historian and probably the single greatest living scholar of Alexander the Great.

c) Ernst Badian is an Austrian Jew who made it to Britain just ahead of the Gestapo.

(1) In a series of devastating articles, collected into books but never turned into a full-length biography, Badian has made his reputation by systematically stripping away any veneer of idealism or altruism behind Alexander's deeds.

(2) His tactic has been to accept the vulgate at the expense of the "imperial" tradition, with the argument being that Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Callisthenes, Nearchus, etc., were all out to exalt Alexander and themselves at the expense of the truth. For some reason, he believes that military aggressors place a great reliance on propaganda.

(3) His analysis tends to consistently find a hard rational base for almost any action of Alexander's, such as the burning of Susa, Thebes, etc. Looking for that is useful--witness my description of Thebes. He also DID remove a great deal of gloss that people such as Niehbuhr and Wilcken have applied to Alexander's political murders and mass butcheries.

(4) Conversely, Alexander was not Hitler, no matter how much some of his actions might (necessarily) resemble the other would-be world conqueror. The ultimate barometer is the truth.

8. Not that the Germans have been left in sole custody of Alexander. Enter the British:

a) William Woodthorpe Tarn wrote an immensely influential book on Alexander which he published in 1948--volume 1 is Tarn's historical narrative, volume 2 is the notes. Copies are still around.

(1) Tarn was a "gentleman" of independent means. He used to come into Oxford once ever so often to do his research before returning back to his estate and his voluminous writings.

(2) He had trained as a lawyer, and had been one of the early organizers of the League of Nations, which he watched disintegrate into the chaos of WWII.

(3) He saw Alexander as a man who wanted to unite the world, "not in bonds of slavery, but of love," and that world unity was the only way these horrible wars could be prevented-- cf. the UN.

(4) Alexander would be the man who introduced the ideals of cosmopolitanism and monotheism into the Western world.

(5) This idealist as a scholar played very hard ball--he made personal attacks on his opponents (Morrison), ignored or dismissed data that did not agree with his theories. The theory was more important than the truth.

b) Nicholas (N.G.L) Hammond made it to Colonel in the British Army, and during WWII used his acquaintance with matters Greek as a liason with the Greek underground.

(1) Incredibly well-informed about warfare and the mechanics thereof. He destroyed Donald Engels' _The Logistics of the Macedonian Army_, which based its analysis on the mechanics of supplying Alexander's army by donkey. Hammond proved they used wagons.

(2) Hammond, having served under and among genuine titans, has maintained that Alexander does deserve special consideration on a level above Badian's prosecutions. You can call him more sober Tarn.

d) Peter Green was a journalist himself, which not only describes his feelings for Cleitarchus, and his view of Alexander, but his writing style. Everything concerning Alexander and the Hellenistic Age are evil, weak, and vile. I can't stand him.

e) Robin Lane Fox is a celebrated Atheist, but that didn't stop him from writing what has been called "the last great gasp of the Alexander romance" perhaps intentionally a response to Green. His scholarship is not impressive, his reasoning poor.

f) Graham hasn't yet published much on Al--figures that other people have said as much as is really important.

B. The Yanks have had a glove in it!

1. Moses Hadas held Tarn's beliefs, only moreso. MAYBE a function of Alexander's good reputation in Judaic tradition (Mose was a religious jew). And maybe not.

2. Our most celebrated writer was C. A. Robinson, also a great Hellenistic Historian, author _The Meeting of East and West and Unity and Brotherhood_.

a) Robinson fused Niehbuhr's theory (from Diodorus's reference to plans found after Alexander died aimed at conquering the West) with Tarn's "cosmopolitanism" and the experience of being an American directly after WWII.

b) Alexander WAS an idealist, Robinson reasoned, but his way of uniting the world under stable rulership was uniting it at sarissa-point under him.

c) It's worth noting that Tarn rejected Robinson's theory as too militaristic. That tells you a fair amount about Tarn!

d) You can watch Borza in his notes drifting along with the current flow in Alexander scholarship--well away from Tarn and Nieburhr, great influence by Badian and _fin de siecle_ cynicism, but Alexander's accomplishments are still holding people's attention.

I attempted to contact the author 'Dr Rice' but was unsuccessful. Can anyone verify any of this background or forward me to a source that can? It certainly presents good reasons for for their writing styles/beliefs, if only it's all true.

Thanks again

[marcus]

I attempted to contact the author 'Dr Rice' but was unsuccessful. Can anyone verify any of this background or forward me to a source that can? It certainly presents good reasons for for their writing styles/beliefs, if only it's all true.

Thanks again

Hi Limeyman,

Generally that seems pretty on the spot, although it's difficult to cut through the polemic, especially about the more recent writers - Rice appears to be letting his personal feelings take over in a couple of cases (for instance, his comments on Lane Fox, which don't really cut the mustard as historiography). The stuff on Tarn, Schachermeyer and Badian looks OK.

If you do a search on this forum you should be able to find a copy of The Times' obituary of Nick Hammond. Not only did he have contact with the Greek resistance during the War, but he was out there fighting with them - hence his incredibly good grasp of the topography of Northern Greece.

Cheers