Scan barcode
annarella's review
4.0
It's an interesting and informative book, I learned new things and found the books well written and well researched.
Recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine
Recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
slow-paced
1.0
Overview:
Macedonia was a small state until it became a great power. This book follows the course of the breakup of Macedonia. How Alexander the Great’s power fractured and weakened. This was the legacy that Alexander the Great had left behind. Showcasing those who took power, and their successors. The reasons why they wanted power, and how they kept or lost it. The political maneuverings. The different cultures and attitudes that people had towards others.
The lack of unity caused friction between the kingdoms. The fractured Macedonian kingdoms were weaker than their former whole self. Being weakened, and having to deal with internal struggles, made them targets of foreign powers. There were many vicissitudes of power. Strategies that had worked and were deemed superior, had their flaws found and become ineffective.
Caveats?
This book has a lot of details, the problem is how they are expressed. Easy to lose track of which details apply to whom and what region, because the details quickly relate to various people and regions. Hard to understand how the details go together. To get a lot out of the book, the reader needs to already know a lot about the background of the various people and regions.
ellanarose's review
informative
slow-paced
3.5
I requested this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. As always, my reviews contain mild spoilers, but for a nonfiction book I feel like that's not going to be an issue.
I would definitely have expected more references, there are a few sweeping generalisations and arguments that need evidence. There are also endnotes, rather than footnotes, and I think all of academia is tired of those. There are very strong arguments against imperialism, and the exploitation that it brings; this is wonderful. There is a quick mention of polychromy, a personal love of mine, which is the discovery of the bright colours of painted marble statues, and the restoration of those artworks. It's something I recommend looking up if you're unfamiliar with it.
The writing style is academic... and by this I mean that sometimes the word order is switched around to make it sound fancier than it needs to be, and words are added in unnecessarily. It's fancier than it needs to be, for the sake of being academic in style. I strongly believe in nonfiction being easy to read. I know how elitist Classics is, and academic writing being unnecessarily verbose is tiring. It's 2022, we deserve easier to read academia.
There are also descriptive details. While these are great for narrative, and for telling the story of military campaigns, they don't add to the historical accuracy. Descriptive details - like saying ships had victory wreaths, and that soldiers were "hungry and filthy" - do add to fiction, and makes for more realistic fiction. This however is not fiction. Unless these details can be backed up with evidence, I don't think they should be included.
Talking of military campaigns, I do have to say that my hopes mentioned earlier were crushed. This book is a descriptive narrative of various military campaigns. That is not a criticism, as for some that is going to be useful from a nonfiction book. I'm just fully aware that history is not made of a series of battles, but there's so much more to history than that. I've read so many books that are purely descriptive narrations of military campaigns, and this is yet another one.
There's minimal interpretation, minimal evidence, just stating facts and adding descriptive details for flavour. Again, that might suit some people, but if I did that for any of my essays, I'd be told to use evidence, to prove my arguments, and to interpret the evidence. I'd be asked to criticise scholarship, and there's none of that here. While the facts stated are accurate, to the best of my knowledge, evidence is essential. The bibliography is three pages long; the bibliography for my dissertation, about the length of a quarter of this book, reached seven pages. Most of the scholarship dates from the 1970s, the 1990s, and the 2010s; I would expect to see much more from the 2010s than the 1970s, as scholarship updates. Equally, all of the references are books, showing a distinct lack of articles and journals. I'd also like to know what translations of primary sources were used, as translations can vary greatly. Just saying you're quoting the Iliad isn't enough, when each translation can lead to different interpretations of the same thing. There are also several quotes without references.
Overall, this is one I'd recommend if this is your cup of tea. Nonfiction is much more niche, I tend to find, than fiction. If you love Alexander the Great, you'll enjoy this book. If you're looking for a book to introduce you to Alexander the Great, this would not be what I'd recommend. If you prefer military history over social history, this is definitely up your alley. Personally, I had a good time reading it, but I'd probably not reread or use it as a reference; there are too many things lacking for me.
I would definitely have expected more references, there are a few sweeping generalisations and arguments that need evidence. There are also endnotes, rather than footnotes, and I think all of academia is tired of those. There are very strong arguments against imperialism, and the exploitation that it brings; this is wonderful. There is a quick mention of polychromy, a personal love of mine, which is the discovery of the bright colours of painted marble statues, and the restoration of those artworks. It's something I recommend looking up if you're unfamiliar with it.
The writing style is academic... and by this I mean that sometimes the word order is switched around to make it sound fancier than it needs to be, and words are added in unnecessarily. It's fancier than it needs to be, for the sake of being academic in style. I strongly believe in nonfiction being easy to read. I know how elitist Classics is, and academic writing being unnecessarily verbose is tiring. It's 2022, we deserve easier to read academia.
There are also descriptive details. While these are great for narrative, and for telling the story of military campaigns, they don't add to the historical accuracy. Descriptive details - like saying ships had victory wreaths, and that soldiers were "hungry and filthy" - do add to fiction, and makes for more realistic fiction. This however is not fiction. Unless these details can be backed up with evidence, I don't think they should be included.
Talking of military campaigns, I do have to say that my hopes mentioned earlier were crushed. This book is a descriptive narrative of various military campaigns. That is not a criticism, as for some that is going to be useful from a nonfiction book. I'm just fully aware that history is not made of a series of battles, but there's so much more to history than that. I've read so many books that are purely descriptive narrations of military campaigns, and this is yet another one.
There's minimal interpretation, minimal evidence, just stating facts and adding descriptive details for flavour. Again, that might suit some people, but if I did that for any of my essays, I'd be told to use evidence, to prove my arguments, and to interpret the evidence. I'd be asked to criticise scholarship, and there's none of that here. While the facts stated are accurate, to the best of my knowledge, evidence is essential. The bibliography is three pages long; the bibliography for my dissertation, about the length of a quarter of this book, reached seven pages. Most of the scholarship dates from the 1970s, the 1990s, and the 2010s; I would expect to see much more from the 2010s than the 1970s, as scholarship updates. Equally, all of the references are books, showing a distinct lack of articles and journals. I'd also like to know what translations of primary sources were used, as translations can vary greatly. Just saying you're quoting the Iliad isn't enough, when each translation can lead to different interpretations of the same thing. There are also several quotes without references.
Overall, this is one I'd recommend if this is your cup of tea. Nonfiction is much more niche, I tend to find, than fiction. If you love Alexander the Great, you'll enjoy this book. If you're looking for a book to introduce you to Alexander the Great, this would not be what I'd recommend. If you prefer military history over social history, this is definitely up your alley. Personally, I had a good time reading it, but I'd probably not reread or use it as a reference; there are too many things lacking for me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child death, Colonisation, Death, Genocide, and Misogyny
More...