Paul Cartledge's new book

[jona]

A review of the new bio by Paul Cartledge: http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/his ... 0.htmlJona

[marcus]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[xxx]

His chapter on Alexander in his companion book to The Greeks TV series, wasn't much. This appears to reinforce my original opinion.

[amyntoros]

My computer may be possessed - although operating perfectly the rest of the time, it locks up completely immediately after I access the review. I've tried three times and had to reboot each time! Any chance of someone copying the review here? I was able to read the first part of the page and caught the word 'gangster' so I'm now intrigued. And is this the ATG, Hunt for a New Past book that the Amazon review says "glowingly illustrates" Alexander's life? :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[jona]

Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past
Paul Cartledge
Macmillan -ú20, pp317The appeal, of course, is infinitely romantic. An amazingly young, amazingly brilliant warrior king conquers the world and, in myth at least, becomes godlike. Mary Renault and Valerio Massimo Manfredi write bestselling novels about him. Leonardo DiCaprio signs up to play him in yet another screen version. His victories are the serious stuff of military history. But the question lingers, sourly insistent among so much sweet adulation: was he Alexander the Great - or Alexander the Rather Appalling?Professor Cartledge has not set out to write the companion book of the movie. His hunt for the true Alexander comes in essay form, taking the episodes and liaisons that made one great life and using them to pin down a giant shadow. It's a revealing, often enthralling search. You can't travel the globe much without finding the trail of Alexander: from Macedonia to the Hindu Kush, he went where no Greek had ever gone before and, as Cartledge says, created the Hellenised Middle East that essentially thereafter became the Eastern Roman Empire where Christianity first put down roots.The ironies and complexities proliferate. But the biggest to emerge from Cartledge's analyses seems almost incidental. The governance of this ancient world was not, in any true sense, ancient: indeed, recognition sparks with every comparison. What else was the Macedonian monarchy - first Philip, then his son - but an autocracy, a dictatorship, a military dictatorship? The 'Companionate' (or inner circle) of the army chose him - its commander-in-chief - in secret, the wider army ran his treason trials and could have their 'justice' swayed by his known desires. Think Halliburton plus Guant+ínamo Bay. And as for Darius III and the Persian Empire, with an honours system to make Buckingham Palace weep and corrupt satrap states supervising the conquests, then parallels abound. This isn't any sort of past. This is politics as usual - so let's judge Alexander by the usual standards.
Advertiser links
E-Books and E-BrochuresE-book and e-brochure design and production from Interactive...
interactive-marketing.net
E-Books with Full Resell RightsQuality business and marketing e-books with full resell...
homebusinessopportunities.co.uk
Find E-books at eBay.co.ukBuy and sell computers and accessories on eBay.co.uk, the...
ebay.co.ukHe was unnaturally ruthless, even psychotic, from the start.

[jona]

(Continued; sorry for the commercial mumbo-jumbo that is included in the former post)He was unnaturally ruthless, even psychotic, from the start. He may well have had his father assassinated. He assuredly bumped off a formidable array of erstwhile friends and possible rivals. Brutality marched with him every step of the journey. He could have saved the glory that was Thebes; instead, he burnt it to the ground and slaughtered its inhabitants. There was no mercy on display when he captured fellow Greeks who had fought against him. The Indus was yet another river of blood.Alexander ruled by fear and intimidation. He may have left a few quasi-democratic satraps behind on his headlong march, but that was realpolitik not conviction. Left to himself he would always put his foes to the sword. Some of his biographers have seen a touch of Napoleon or Hitler in his make-up, but put that the other way round. Add a spoonful of Saddam, a thimbleful of Milosevic, a pinch of George W; let the rancid stew boil merrily. He was an appalling human being. The lust for conquest seemed insatiable. The art of compromise was lost on him. Diplomacy, at best, involved marrying the daughter of some hapless monarch and adding her to his collection. My old chemistry teacher used to lecture us lads about the virtue of having 31 ties, one for every day of the month, so they never wore out. Alexander kept 365 women in his harem but never stood in any danger of wearing any of them out; he preferred boys anyway.There is, in short, very little to be said for him. Unreasoning ambition drove him on, but he left nothing by way of philosophy behind him. The spread of the Greek way owed nothing to Alexander. He defeated the Athenians and rolled them into his tatty domain. He was a gangster, a hoodlum, a thug: much less creative than his dad.Why talk of greatness, then? Because (on the spinmeister front) he had Aristotle for a personal tutor, lustre if not wisdom conferred. And, of course, because he was a military genius. Cartledge is clear-eyed here. It was Philip again, not his son, who built the magnificent Macedonian cavalry which stood at the heart of so many of Alexander's triumphs. Luck, moreover, followed him for 12 of his 13 glory years. To have the world's finest army and finest commanders, with luck holding the line until his own troops themselves grew sated by victory, was a very heaven of generalship. But his energy, his organisation, his resource still invite onl

[jona]

(Continued)Why talk of greatness, then? Because (on the spinmeister front) he had Aristotle for a personal tutor, lustre if not wisdom conferred. And, of course, because he was a military genius. Cartledge is clear-eyed here. It was Philip again, not his son, who built the magnificent Macedonian cavalry which stood at the heart of so many of Alexander's triumphs. Luck, moreover, followed him for 12 of his 13 glory years. To have the world's finest army and finest commanders, with luck holding the line until his own troops themselves grew sated by victory, was a very heaven of generalship. But his energy, his organisation, his resource still invite only awe. Give him a few WMDs and we could all have raised a white flag.Are there other interpretations to be drawn from this restless, exhilarating book? Naturally. Alexander moves so fast, destroying so much evidence behind him, that you can really build your own biography from these pages. But it's still a gripping performance. Maybe Napoleon got it wrong when he said, of Alexander: 'To conquer is nothing, one must profit from one's success.' Maybe conquest, in itself, was the profit. But the enigma - and the legend - live.

[marcus]

We should remember that this is a review of the book, and therefore it isn't even the information put out by the publisher. I look forward to reading the book, myself - I know Tre doesn't agree entirely, but I've always had a lot of time for Cartledge; although Alexander has never been his specialism - talk about getting on the bandwagon! :-)All the bestMarcus

[jona]

"talk about getting on the bandwagon!"It must be coincidence. Please allow me a rather personal reply.My own book (400 pages) took me about 110-120 weeks, including research and travel (12,000 kilometers - I just figured that out for the cover text). As I have a job, I have been busy with my book for about four years. I believe that Mr Cartledge, who is working at a university, must have been busy with his book for four years too. He must have started his project well before Stone announced his movie.By coincidence, my book appears in the very month of the movie. I suppose Cartledge now experiences the same thing as I do, and has the same mixed feelings as I have about his book and the movie.I have spend a lot of money in travel and research, more than I can expect, under normal circumstances, to earn from this book. (You don't write books to make money.) Now, the movie offers me an opportunity to see some returns. That's nice.On the other hand, I expect reviews in which everyone will summarize the story of Alexander, discuss the movie, mention the "wave of Alexander publications", make some comparison with the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and will say NOT A SINGLE WORD about my cuneiform tablets. That's not nice.Please note that in the review of Cartledge's new book, there's little about the details of his scholarship. On the other hand, we read about Lwonardo di Caprio, Guantanamo Bay, and WMD. It could as well have been a portrait of Alexander, based on a book by Bosworth. If I were Cartledge, I'd be pissed.Jona

[amyntoros]

Thanks so much, Jona, for posting the review here. All I can say after reading it is that if I were the publisher I would *pay* for a review like this! The editorial blurb on Amazon is far less controversial. For example: "Paul Cartledge's Alexander the Great: glowingly illuminates the brief but iconic life of Alexander (356-323 BC), king of Macedon, conqueror of the Persian Empire, and founder of a new world order. Cartledge, the distinguished scholar and historian long acknowledged as the leading international authority on ancient Sparta and Greece, brilliantly evokes Alexander's remarkable political and military accomplishments, leads us along the geographical path of his victorious armies, and compellingly charting the tremendous field of this warrior hero's influence."Blah, blah, blah. The last time I updated my list a couple of months ago there were at least sixteen new books on Alexander (including fiction) being published between June and January. Nothing in the editorial review made Cartledge's book stand out as a "must purchase." Now I read lines in the Observer review such as "He assuredly bumped off a formidable array of erstwhile friends and possible rivals." and my mind runs through incidents in A's history - the elimination of possible contenders to the throne, Philotas, Parmenion, Cleitus, Callisthenes - and I find I *want* to read Cartledge's interpretation. I enjoy a good argument (even if it is only with a book I'm reading) so now I will definitely take a look at this book, while previously it was at the bottom of my list as being unlikely to add anything new or challenge my own perceptions in any way.Of course, it could be the reviewer's own opinions and not Cartledge's, as has already been stated here. If that does turn out to be the case I'll be mightily peeved at having spent money on the book! :-)Best regards,Linda AnnP.S. Even Heckel has a new book coming out on January 15th - Who's Who In The Age of Alexander The Great.

[amyntoros]

Hey Jona, you must have written your last post while I was writing mine - and I see that you have a very different interpretation of the Cartledge review. Another case of different strokes for different folks! I'm sorry your book is unlikely to be reviewed, though had you been able to have it published in English I'm sure it would gain more attention. It's a shame all around.Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Hi Jona,I can't say for sure, but (based on nothing) I would be very surprised if Cartledge spent four years preparing his book.You'd be surprised how much time university lecturers get (or can find) to write their books when they need to!I might be doing Cartledge a disservice, in which case I will apologise unreservedly. However, my cynicism doesn't change my mind about wanting the read the book and holding Cartledge in high esteem. (I have met him, also, although it was many years ago when I was at university - just thought I'd do the name-dropping thing...)All the bestMarcus

[jan]

Hi Linda Ann,Save your money! Agnes Savill's is much better!Jan

[jan]

I do not know whether it is Paul Cartledge or Peter Preston who wrote that Alexander liked little boys. I find that statement wholly offensive and false. That alone would cause me to ignore this book as fiction and nothing more!

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I suspect it's the reviewer who's dragged that out. I would be very surprised if Cartledge were to have made any such statement.Still, not yet having read the book, I could be wrong. All the bestMarcus