Scan barcode
sardonic_writer's review against another edition
5.0
Easy to read, comprehensive look at what happened after Alexander died that covers *all of it* unlike some books (Ghost on the Throne). Truly one of the most turbulent periods of time I've read about. Go Ptolemy.
gsanta1's review against another edition
3.0
I don't blame the author. Waterfield did a great job with the material give.
I started this book about a year ago but took frequent breaks because it was a tough read for me.
I was thinking another title for this book could be "Chaos after Alexander".
Because everything you could think of, happened. Assassinations? Yes. Corruption? Yes. Desertion? Yes. Infidelity? Yes. Incest? Yes. Betrayal? Yes. Battles? Yes. Religion? Yes. Political plots? Yes.
I'm probably missing a bunch more.
Not only were there so many turns, but it was tough keeping track of who was who. People popped in and out and either took over, were killed, switched sides, or choose exile.
There were so many betrayals you ended up confused about who were friends and who were the enemies.
There are some great information in here. I learned a lot. There was probably more I could've gotten from it or enjoyed it more of it didn't leave me so befuddled.
I started this book about a year ago but took frequent breaks because it was a tough read for me.
I was thinking another title for this book could be "Chaos after Alexander".
Because everything you could think of, happened. Assassinations? Yes. Corruption? Yes. Desertion? Yes. Infidelity? Yes. Incest? Yes. Betrayal? Yes. Battles? Yes. Religion? Yes. Political plots? Yes.
I'm probably missing a bunch more.
Not only were there so many turns, but it was tough keeping track of who was who. People popped in and out and either took over, were killed, switched sides, or choose exile.
There were so many betrayals you ended up confused about who were friends and who were the enemies.
There are some great information in here. I learned a lot. There was probably more I could've gotten from it or enjoyed it more of it didn't leave me so befuddled.
czillla's review against another edition
3.0
Excellently written.
Waterfield does an amazing job of revealing a time period that receives far less attention than it is due. The political aspirations, cultural manipulation, and regional conflicts that this era created paved the way for Rome's entry into the Middle East and all of the historical significance that came from it.
Not the most comprehensive, but a very strong introduction to the time period.
Waterfield does an amazing job of revealing a time period that receives far less attention than it is due. The political aspirations, cultural manipulation, and regional conflicts that this era created paved the way for Rome's entry into the Middle East and all of the historical significance that came from it.
Not the most comprehensive, but a very strong introduction to the time period.
upokyin's review
4.0
4 stars - I really liked it. I recommend this to anyone, who like me, is naturally curious about the history of the mediterranean lands in the period after the end of the classical period and before the start of Roman dominance. The history is explained at just the right level of detail for my interest, covering not just the wars and battles but also explaining the overall developments in society, politics, culture, art and religion. I found the book very entertaining yet not trivial as is often the case with books in the category often termed "popular history". There is plenty of analysis but not the dry and pedantic nitpicking that I often find in books targeted at academic readers.
librarianonparade's review
3.0
The death of any powerful leader with no obvious successor or heir inevitably creates a vacuum, inevitably leads to a power struggle between those left behind - and what great leader of antiquity existed than Alexander the Great, conqueror of much of the known world? When Alexander died at the age of thirty-three, having won himself an empire that stretched from Greece to India, encompassing Egypt, Persia, Babylon, Afghanistan and Syria, he alone was the glue that held these disparate lands and peoples together. To quote Yeats, "things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed."
And was it ever loosed. Alexander's Successors fought over his empire for forty years, each striving either to carve out his own kingdom or establish dominion over the others. Sons, nephews, brothers and cousins, all came together in ever-changing combinations, one moment allies, the next enemies, and then allies again.
In truth, no-one could ever have succeeded Alexander, and it is telling that once the generation of Successors who had fought alongside Alexander had died, the next generation were more content with creating their own kingdoms, no longer aimed at world domination. Alexander's empire was perhaps inevitably destined by breakup, being so reliant as it was on the almost superhuman, charismatic, exceptional individual it was founded on. Praise Alexander or condemn him, no-one can deny that he was a remarkable individual, rarely seen outside of the pages of fiction.
It was a swirling, complicated time, but Robin Waterfield provides a clear and concise overview of the period. This is a relatively short book for such a turbulent time involving so many different players, and on occasion the lack of depth frustrated me. This book could have done with being twice as long, with perhaps more emphasis on the context and histories of the cultures and individuals involved. James Romm's Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire covers much the same ground, although focusing only on the first generation of Successors, and on the whole I would recommend that one over this, for anyone interested in a post-mortem of Alexander the Great's empire.
And was it ever loosed. Alexander's Successors fought over his empire for forty years, each striving either to carve out his own kingdom or establish dominion over the others. Sons, nephews, brothers and cousins, all came together in ever-changing combinations, one moment allies, the next enemies, and then allies again.
In truth, no-one could ever have succeeded Alexander, and it is telling that once the generation of Successors who had fought alongside Alexander had died, the next generation were more content with creating their own kingdoms, no longer aimed at world domination. Alexander's empire was perhaps inevitably destined by breakup, being so reliant as it was on the almost superhuman, charismatic, exceptional individual it was founded on. Praise Alexander or condemn him, no-one can deny that he was a remarkable individual, rarely seen outside of the pages of fiction.
It was a swirling, complicated time, but Robin Waterfield provides a clear and concise overview of the period. This is a relatively short book for such a turbulent time involving so many different players, and on occasion the lack of depth frustrated me. This book could have done with being twice as long, with perhaps more emphasis on the context and histories of the cultures and individuals involved. James Romm's Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire covers much the same ground, although focusing only on the first generation of Successors, and on the whole I would recommend that one over this, for anyone interested in a post-mortem of Alexander the Great's empire.
More...