pothos.org

limeyman25 wrote: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.

The problem with some of this information is that it is neither true nor false, but merely an opinion. Look at the website owner's comments on Green and Lane Fox:

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.

Here we have two very popular authors who are summarily and curtly dismissed based on the writer's own opinions of their works. Hardly a good approach to historiography. My advice - which you don't have to accept - would be to first research the background of the authors yourself. And as it would be a major task to examine all their works in detail, perhaps you could select a number of episodes from Alexander's history such as the death of Cleitus, the burning of Persepolis, the Philotas affair, etc., and examine how each writer treats those particular events. It all depends on how much time you have to devote to this subject, of course.

Best regards,

Amyntoros

[quote="limeyman25"]

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)...
quote]

You should be able to get the video of the Footsteps from your local library (at least it's available in the U.S.

Sorry guys, I don't think I made as much sense as I should have. I was more wondering if the BACKGROUND info on the historians was correct. I realise that Dr Rice will have some bias and was duly ignoring it. Cheers for the info on Nick Hammond, I'll be sure to look at it.

I'm not looking forward to refrencing his site, so is there a more academic/mainstream source where I can corroborate these details?

Thanks, as always

-limeyman25

The top three should do you just fine. You'll be pleased to know that one of our regulars (Paralus, a fellow Aussie of yours) has ranked Green as his no. 1 pick. I'd have a hard time arguing with this as Green's "Alexander of Macedon" biography is my favorite book (except for my own) as well. Green is a terrific writer and an excellent historian to boot. The top 5 books recommended on this site are practically required reading for anyone who wants a well rounded viewpoint. No historian has been able to ride the fence with Alexander, but most of our top 5 do a fair job of accurately relaying the history, just with a slight slant...one way or the other. Hammond and Renault (very positive and affirming) to balance against Green and Bosworth(more negative and unforgiving)...etc, etc....

My first experience was with Mary Renault's "The Nature of Alexander". As I've said before, it's a literary love affair with the man. Her writing style is very easy and forgiving but her facts border on fiction and fantasy. Hammond was a soldier in WWII and provides some interesting tactical insight as well as an interesting point of view that only someone with his experience could provide. Green...what can I say, except start here for the best combination of his lyrical style of writing (a style that almost borders on poetry...from a poets point of view) and fact. He has written something that few other historians could have. So deep does he get into the ancient world, that at times it seems he was there. Bosworth was my pick for the best of the best for its rote accuracy. He leaves out extra supporting information that Green might have added to prove a point. Bosworth was my go to source when I absolutely positively had to have the right answer. Just as often, however, he'd leave critical information out as the information couldn't be supported with the actual source material (Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Justin, or Strabo). One last source that deserves an honorable mention would be Fuller. If you want a military source, then this is the go to book (along with Engels "Logistics of the Macedonian Army"). Personally, with the exception of the source material and the books I've mentioned here, I'd ignore the rest. But it depends on what level of understanding you want to take with you and what you want to accomplish when you're done. I'll bet some of our regulars have read over fifty books on or relating to Alexander and the genre. Source material included, I think I've read over thirty and own over twenty. Good Luck

Nicator wrote:The top three should do you just fine. You'll be pleased to know that one of our regulars (Paralus, a fellow Aussie of yours) has ranked Green as his no. 1 pick.

Too bloody right Nicator! Green's is by far the most "enjoyable" read of the majors. The style is sharp and witty GÇô something lacking in "Dr. Rice" in my opinion. That is not to say that the book lacks scholastic or intellectual rigour GÇô an equation too easily resorted to when one dares make history enjoyable. As well, Green has an occasionally disarming view of his own suppositions and errors (famously declaring his revision of the Granicus was "flat wrong"), something others might learn from.

In the recent (1991) reprint, Green mused over the possibility of a fully revised edition of "Alexander of Macedon". A pity it is not a reality.

Nicator wrote: Bosworth was my pick for the best of the best for its rote accuracy. He leaves out extra supporting information that Green might have added to prove a point. Bosworth was my go to source when I absolutely positively had to have the right answer.

Again, an excellent choice. Bosworth is increasingly the "rounded" voice of GÇô for want of a better description GÇô the rationalist "Badian" approach to Alexander. His works are also a reasonably pleasant read as opposed to some "stodge" that passes for scholarly writing GÇô impeccable though that scholarship may be. His recent The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda Under the Successors was an excellent read. It is apparently a foretaste of a much fuller work GÇô in progress GÇô on the Diadochoi. That can't be finished and published quickly enough.

I'd also add to the list a most enjoyable and scholarly read: Paul Cartledge's Alexander The Great. In fact, Mr Cartledge is a pleasant read no matter the subjec - though Sparta remains his "home".

limeyman25 wrote: I'm not looking forward to refrencing his site, so is there a more academic/mainstream source where I can corroborate these details?

I've been having a quick look through my books for a good chapter/section on historiography. There was a very good one that I can't locate at the moment; but another good, albeit brief overview of people like Tarn, Schachermayer, Badian etc. is in the Eugene Borza's introduction to the 1967 edition (reprinted 1997) of Ulrich Wilcken's "Alexander the Great". Wilcken himself wrote an interesting book - a bit dated now, but still 'required' reading - he was a bit of a toned-down Badian, not as idealistic as Tarn but certainly more tolerant of Alexander than Badian was.

I would recommend digging that out, for starters.

ATB