pothos.org

There's a Collector's Edition of U.S. News and World Report called Untold Tales of the Great Conquerors available on the newsstands. It's $5.99 and will be on sale through January 3rd.
A Betsy Carpenter (no idea who she is) is the writer for the first chapter, Charismatic King of Macedonia: Alexander the Great. The publication supposedly gives the general public a new look at various conquerors (as in "untold" stories) and here it reflects the new outlook on Alexander, intending to be a realistic approach to his life, but one that I know is frequently viewed as hostile by many an admirer here. You know who you are! Quite a few recognizable authorities on Alexander are quoted, including our own Jona Lendering. Very brief excerpts below: "Historians have applauded Alexander for treating his opponent's family with respect . . .But this gentlemanly behavior is better seen as a claim to the throne than as an act of chivalry, argues Jona Lendering, author of the new book Alexander de Grote. . ." And then there's V. D. Hanson (anyone surprised to find him here?) "The son's contribution? The impulse to annihilate. Greek soldiers had long been respected for their skill and willingness to fight to the death - indeed, many ancient rulers employed them as mercenaries. But before Alexander they mostly met on small battlefields where they thrust and stabbed for an hour or so before one side gave up and the killing stopped. Alexander, however, practiced 'total pursuit and destruction of the defeated enemy,' Hanson argues, 'ensuring battle casualties unimaginable just a few decades earlier.' " On the cultural effects of Alexander's conquest, Walter Burkert (who has a new book out called Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern contexts of Greek Culture), argues that the "idea that some sort of cultural firewall existed between east and west before Alexander is wrongheaded." Andrew Stewart tells us that most peoples only real contact with Greek culture was "when soldiers came through and grabbed their chickens for food," while a David Potter of the U. of Michigan says that Alexander persisted with his Persianization efforts because "he recognized that he couldn't control his empire without a buy-in from the conquered" and not because he envisioned "the peoples of the world singing 'Kumbaya' together on the banks of the Euphrates." Continued . . .

It's not an "all bad" account of Alexander by any means, but compare it with the chapter on Attila the Hun who, we're told, was described in the lone contemporary account as "a level-headed ruler, deliberate in his actions, cunning rather than violent, and capable of generous gestures." The Hunnish culture is described as sophisticated, Attila as a charismatic leader, and his rule as benign. Some quotes: "slaves were acquired but could gain freedom . . .he afforded his victims great religious tolerance. . . has never been accused of killing for the sake of killing or of having singled out a nation for extermination. . .his empire was a mutinational and multreligious state where one's origins made no difference in one's advancement; only one's capabilities mattered."Now to those Pothosians who love to make favorable comparisons between Alexander and other conquerors, please remember I am only quoting from the publication. These are not my words. Don't shoot the messenger! :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

Hi Linda,Shoot the messenger? No, who would give us such nice posts to read? V.C. Hanson, now that's another matter! This guy is the biggest self-aggrandizing bozo the historian wanna be, politically correct, moron ever. He is overwhelmingly guilty of attempting to rewrite history according to his liberal skewed viewpoints. A modern day Demosthenes, only without the rhetorical skill. (Actually, it's really not fair to Demosthenes to compare him to this fool). later Nicator

A modern day Demosthenes without the rhetorical skill indeed!Ha, ha, haa!Now there's a bloke pegged for what he is if ever I've read it!VDH seems to have an altogether unhealthy fascination with war and the making of it. He fits quite well with the current administration he so obviously supports. Problem is, he appears to apply that thinking to ancient history as well.As I've written on more than one occasion, I tend strongly towards the Badian/Green view of Alexander. VDH is that view on steroids GÇô too far for me to travel with him.I've not seen his (a gap in my viewing to be filled) but if that view of Attila is correct I may need to revise my opinion of Ghenkis Khan.

"Amyntoros",What do you think of it? As I replied earlier, this is one I missed when on show in Australia - it has not to my knowledge been repeated.From your description the treatment of Alexander is from a "match/real-politic" or "Badian" perspective which, if not overdone, would interest me (though given it includes a contribution from that great "couch-commander" VDH it may be a little skewed towards the "western way of war/slaughter/total anihilation type of thing VDH is good at?). How does it treat the other "conquerers" and who might they be aside fron Attila (Ceasar, Napoleon Peter the Great?).If you've seen both, does the "collector's edition add to the original(haven't checked its availability here yet).From a personal perspective, I'd love to see the makers of "Empires" do a sereies on the Diadochoi and their struggles. An "Empires" classic in the making that.Thanks in advance,Michael.

VDH is clearly confused, since casualty figures from hoplite battles tend to show that the killing only really started when one side gave up, it is only the fact that pursuit was on foot that stopped the losers being annihilated.

Correct "Agesilaos"."Greek warfare" (to leave aside some of the more egregious killing of the Peleponesia War) was damn near a gentlemanly thing. VDH has got one thing right: it was conducted mostly by "agrarian" hoplites. You know - "let's get the pushing, poking and jabbing done, the olives are ripe!"Yes the killing was done in the retreat/chase. Had the city states the cavalry numbers and nous to use them, the killing would have multiplied.

Paralus, It's difficult to define the article for our purposes; after all, the magazine is really aimed at the general public. In Alexander's case, the assumption is that the population knows only an idealized Alexander - it begins "Young, beautiful, brave, brilliant, charismatic, chivalrous. What's not to like about Alexander the Great?" It follows then that the "untold tales" have a negative aspect or take a Badianesque approach although it isn't particularly focused on the war/slaughter aspects. Now, I prefer the more humanized Alexander and I still love him 'warts and all', so I see some of the comments as being quite reasonable. For instance, I agree that Alexander's desire was to conquer all and not to spread Hellenism as a 'gift' to the world! But then there's V.D.H's nonsense and Worthington's remark about Tyre that "The smart thing for Alexander to do would been to sacrifice elsewhere and stroll on into the city. . ." I find it incredible that any historian could believe the siege was really about Alexander's wish to sacrifice in the temple. It was about subjugation and conquest, as in 'surrender and/or welcome my rule or be defeated'! If Alexander had accepted the Tyrians demand that he worship elsewhere then it would have been perceived as a weakness and his authority over the city would never have been properly established. Doesn't Worthington understand that the request to worship at the temple was, in part, a means to find out the Tyrians true feelings? I want to throw in a comment about Hanson here because I suspect he's a bit of a fake. After all, any person demonstrating such violent hatred for a man who died over two thousand years ago could be suspected of being a little unbalanced, don't you think? Although I don't agree with them, I understand those who idealize Alexander - many people need to find perfection in their heroes - but I don't find anything normal in Hanson's extreme approach. It's one thing to be realistic about Alexander's life but another to be so *emotional* about his perceived faults. However, Hanson has found a very successful niche as the anti-Alexander even though he's never written a book on the man! Every time a publication wants to have contrasting opinions on Alexander, you can be sure Hanson is used - and he's making good money at this. Continued

Although I don't doubt Hanson dislikes Alexander, I suspect the extreme hatred is posturing on his part - the more sensational his statements the more demand there seems to be for them. And if he's exaggerating his opinions he has no choice but to stretch the truth, which inevitably leads to errors. And, boy, are there errors! But then again, I suppose he *could* be a little unbalanced after all. . . (LOL)Back to your questions on the magazine. I didn't know there had been an original edition so I'm afraid I can't offer a comparison. Here the other conquerors are Caesar ("Today Caesar would be guilty of war crimes. Then he was no more ruthless than the rest"); Attila; Charlemagne (his "utopian ideal of a peaceful Europe remains a contentious work in progress"); The Vikings; William the Conqueror; Genghis Khan ( "Barbarian or Renaissance man? Perhaps Genghis Khan was both"); Hernando Cortes; Mehmet II; Napoleon; Hitler("sexually he is a fully fledged masochist"), and Stalin. I haven't read the whole thing yet - too pressed for time right now, but I can tell you that although the magazine purports to educate, its real purpose is to entertain. And on that level it does succeed. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

A decent account of the successors would be a potential topic for my next epic (particularly, since I am already well versed on the genre), so in this context, I'd like to see it done as well. Nicator

I'd have a few choice words for VDh, but why bother, he's making a short term killing out of slanting history to some liberal ideal. The few who actually still buy into this outdated dogma won't much affect my future anyway...but they'll slow down their own with time wasted on wrong turns and dead ends. I've forced myself to sit through a few interviews with the pansy liberal psuedo-historian, mostly to verify what I already strongly suspected, that he loves the limelight a little too much to be credible. The guy actually scowls when he talks to over-emphasized his jaded points...what great theater! The sad thing was that there were credible professors sharing the bill with him. Unfortunately, it wasn't a debate, but rather a televised meeting. Nicator

Hi Nicator.It seems to me to be an era too often overlooked. As I wished earlier, the people responsible for the "Empires" series would do an excellent job should they take it on.To me it's held a fascination that often eclipses Alexander. The period down to the final Roman annexation (or Provincialisation? I think I've invented a word!) of Greece and Macedonia had the lot: fierce Diadachoi rivalry and wars, politics, culture and tragedy. An entire programme could be filled with to-ing and fro-ing over Coele-Syria.Raphia, Cynoscephalae, Pydna and CorinthGǪ.just to mention a few. Phyyrus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Eumenes, Ptolemy Soter, Perdiccas, Antigonous Monapthalmos SeleucusGǪ.. A cast of thousands.Have you read Peter Green's "From Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age"? An absolutely outstanding book which covers just about anything and everything to do with the period.And, of course, Green's marvellous turn of phrase:"The Romans, casting around for allies of their own who could deal with this situation, picked, faute de mieux, the Aetolians: arguably a mistake. The treaty now made between them GÇô the oldest original Roman treaty surviving, and the first document illustrating Rome's relations with the Greek world GÇô stipulated that Rome would restrict herself to removable booty (a point that Flamininus and his men doubtless recalled later when , with Philhellenist zeal, they raided the country for works of art)GǪ"

HI Linda Ann, I, too, read the article on Alexander when I first found this magazine, and now find that it is no longer available at the bookstore where I first saw it. I think that an accompanying article on Hitler may have caused sales to lag a bit. I didn't find the article compelling enough to purchase, I admit.
I suspect that Hitler is the last real conqueror of note to date! Since WWII is such a powerful lesson for this century, nobody else gets much of a chance, just a lot of bahooey about how they could be come another Hitler, no matter whether Saddam Hussein or George Bush.

Ahhh, another that really appreciates such an excellent writer at his best. Unfortunately, I haven't read this one, as the shorter version of this period by Michael Grant came to my attention (and into my collection, along with several other books from a former US statesman, for the very small sum of US $15). Nick Wellman gave the book an excellent, if not hysterical, review on this site, and I love Green's "turn of phrase" as you so eloquently put it. I did read his book "The Parthenon" before I knew who I was reading, and could fully appreciate it.
later Nicator

Yes Nicator, reading history is a delight with Green's "turn of phrase." His "Alexander of Macedon" is one hell of an historical biography. It's off the subject, but Green's "Armada from Athens" (obviously about the doomed campaign in Sicily) is without par as an examination of the Athenian disaster. From wheat consumption/importation figures to those "Greenian" descriptions of the main players.Better than fiction! As he quotes a colleague in the book, one I'll pick up my Thucydides and find out it all turned out differently!