Anabasis

[dean]

Anabasis. Anabasis by Arrian- was a book I honestly expected to take me in as close up to Alexander as to be able to see the colour of his eyes. Now, I must admit that I do love a good novel and maybe I expected the wrong thing. I had read Xenophon's Anabasis about two months earlier and also found it very quite similar- I mean the style. Now maybe I am reading it the wrong way. For me, the whole book reads just like a timeline that has been expanded(considerably). It was such a surprise- I suppose I set my expectations too high. One thing I did like about it was the fact that Arrian regularly quotes his sources, mainly Ptolemy and Aristobulous,(which sometimes are differing)-and gives an authentic feel to it. To be fair to him, he doesn't try to set his Alexander up as some perfect hero. He tells you the real story about the real man. It does though come through that Arrian admires Alexander considerably,(which is O.K) Yet, I still have this feeling that I still haven't got up so close... What did you think of it?
Best wishes,
Dean.

[maciek]

Hey Dean!
I wrote Arrian's book twice and I loved it. I think it depends of what You expect. Arrian was historian not novelist. He gives the facts to be recorded and that's what we are grateful to him. You have to see that all ancient writers writes different then today - they aim was record the facts or commercial of their sponsors;-) I think we have great number of facts from Arrian and this is worth reading every word in his book. Maybe You should read Curtius Rufus - his description of many events are just amazing. Also long speeches in his book are good to see authors point of view.Maciek

[marcus]

I agree with Maciej - you'll get a better 'novel' out of Curtius... although I would go as far as to say that Plutarch is where you actually get close enough for the 'whites of his eyes'.I don't really know about Diodorus and Justin.All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hello,Curtius is one I haven't read- I don't know but I have this unconscious distrust of his writing due to what other authors have said of him but I guess I will read him sooner or later.As you say, Maciej, Arrian wasn't writing a novel- that is clear- and he is apparently the most trustworthy of writers we have with regard to Alexander the Great. What he seems to do is write solely about what Alexander does and nothing more- certainly not a portrait piece.Like you say Marcus, Plutarch does seem to be where it is at to get to see "the whites of the lion's eyes" however I also thought that Renault's, non-fiction piece, "Nature..." was quite a nice vignette.Take care,
Dean.

[maciek]

O I think You should read Curtius Rufus. He made some mistakes but these are described in places where occurs. What he writes gives the idea how Romans regarded Alexander what is interesting also. His long speeches are interesting also You will see many familiar texts from TV programs there and my favorite version of Malles city siege story is there also. I recommend that book very much.Maciek M

[agesilaos]

The reason the style of both 'Anabaseis' is so similar is that Arrian was consciously imitating the earlier model; writing at a time when Greek had descended to Koine he was trying, among others , to re-establish the old style. He was fairly conscientius and is easily the fullest source though the Vulgate transmits information he omits and is not without merit, I have always found Curtius hard reading. Diodorus is brief and Justin briefer still