(Part 2) Best historical greece biographies according to redditors

This is a monstrous question and opinions will vary depending on who you ask, but I'll take a concise stab at it.

If I had to point to one thing that transcends Alexander's military prowess, it would have to be that the fact that he spread Greek culture and language as far as he did. The wars of the Diadochi and the fragmentation of his brief but spectacular empire do not overshadow the fact that the entire area, from Pella to Multan, was awash with Hellenistic culture. It formed a foundation of common communication, trade, connection between cultures, and familiarity that would persist in the years to come.

A shining example of this is Alexandria (the Egyptian one). Alexandria, alone, was a spectacular testament to what Alexander had enacted upon the land. It became a center for trade, learning, architecture, and science for centuries, and is, in my opinion, emblematic of the change he brought through conquest. Many will argue Alexander was a civilizing force, and while romantic and perhaps overly optimistic, it is easy to make this case. Conversely, one must not forget that with conquest comes destruction - the once-smoldering remnants of Persepolis - the Persian cultural capital - attest to this.

Politically, Alexander transformed nearly all that he touched. Alexander's rise is often cited as the end of Greek military vitality, partially thanks to his father's clever diplomacy and military reforms. With the exception of Sparta, Alexander effectively stomped out Greek resistance (see the story of Thebes as a particularly brutal example), and while it would continue to harry him the further East he went, Greece never returned to a position of regional dominance like it had in the century before. Also, it is worth noting that Alexander's trek into the East was seen (or at least marketed heavily by Alexander himself) as a righteous counterattack against Persian dominance in the century and a half prior. Long had Greece fought Persian kings, and Alexander justified his march eastward by explaining that it was high time for Greece to fight a war of retribution and vengeance - particularly when he (and his mother, Olympias) argued that his own father had been slain by "Persian gold" (the actual details are a bit more shadowy and intrigue-filled than legend would have you believe). This, in itself, had significant political ramifications at the time, and in a sense, united Greece toward a common aim. Let's not forget, however, that Macedonians were considered barbarians by the Greeks themselves, and Athens and its shrewd politicians would forever remain a thorn in Alexander's side.

That said, Alexander shaped the region for centuries to come. In the wake of his empire, new kingdoms arose (the Diadochi) that would have vast and fundamental implications for every region they claimed. Egypt (helmed by the Ptolemaic dynasty, from which Cleopatra would descend), Seleucia, Anatolian successors like the Pontic factions, Bactria, and Persia were all glossed with Hellenism, and while these kingdoms and cultures would eventually diverge, they did so for a great while possessing an Alexandrian flair.

It must also be mentioned that as much as Alexander gifted Hellenism to the world, so too did he prepare his kingdom for a spectacularly bloody civil war with multiple sides in which few emerged better than which they had started. One of Alexander's great failings - and this is key to understanding much of what followed - is that he neglected to name a successor as he lay ill upon his deathbed and didn't father a widely-accepted, legitimate Macedonian heir. This would have horrible, destructive political consequences as the Successors vied with one another for military and political supremacy.

His cultural impact is cross-cultural, as well. I don't think it's too lofty to suggest that there has never been anyone like Alexander - that much is clear and evident in just how far his persona, myth, and legend pervades stories and folk tales throughout the Hellenosphere. Heck, even Shakespeare waxed poetic about Alexander. For centuries he was the ideal, and honorifics would take after his own - "the Great". He was, and some would argue, remains, a shining testament to personal achievement (thought Dante might argue about that), and conquerors, statesmen, and leaders for centuries to come would lament that in their late age, they had not accomplished as much as Alexander had in his thirties. For centuries upon centuries, kings, statesmen, and politicians would claim they possessed Alexandrian trinkets, or that their city was the true burial place of Alexander. The weight his association carried was immense.

I hope this suffices as a brief, topical bullet point list for you. Truly, this is a subject that could an entire lifetime of study. The man was a spectacular, triumphant enigma that has spawned dozens of interpretations, most of them positive and some of them negative, and his legend and adventures have certainly echoed through history like few others, if any.

*****

EDIT: Because I've received some counterpoint with regards to my stance on Alexander's "hellenising", I will write a brief response. I did not mean to suggest that Alexander brought Greek culture with the explicit intent of shifting or creating a new Greek world. /u/mythoplokos wrote a good critique against the perceived "hellenising" mission of benevolence, a weak notion I feel is rooted more in the 18th and 19th century theory that the Western powers could justify their imperialism by envisioning themselves as bringing the gift of civilization to indigenous peoples. Alexander's history can be twisted into this idea, and I believe it is the reason it still persists today in some fashion.

I will, however, stand by the assertion that the spread of Greek culture and language would not have taken place in the manner it did without Alexander. If we do away with the term "hellenising", what then takes its place? We can debate the merits of the word and the theory once behind it, but the essential fact is that Alexander came, and with him "hellenic" culture, Greek language, and all that was associated. Yes, it was perpetuated by the Diadochi kings, but does that fundamentally change the discussion? In my opinion, no. Were it not for Alexander, they would never have been there in the first place.

SOURCES: My apologies for not getting this up sooner, as I had just enough time to get this up before dashing out the front door! These books are well-regarded works and I would recommend them as a good starting place for those wishing to know more.

Alexander the Great - Robin Lane Fox (an excellent, in-depth analysis of various sources and opinions. Fox's analysis of the events leading up to Alexander's ascendancy is first rate, and the entire work is worth reading multiple times.)

Alexander the Great - Paul Cartledge (I would recommend reading this second)

The Generalship of Alexander the Great- JFC Fuller (Fuller presents a shrewd, well-sourced look at Alexander's campaigns and political maneuverings. Worth reading for those whose interest is not sated by the two substantial works above)

Alexander II of Macedon, the more famous Alexander's uncle? Wow, he's niche - I think I've only ever come across him through his association with Iphicrates, the Athenian general. I'm not an expert on ancient Macedonia, mind. Out of interest typed him to Google Scholar and JSTOR and absolutely nothing crops up, so he might be fun to research as there doesn't seem to be much work on him.

I can see from Oxford Classical dictionary that ancient sources to Alexander II are Diodorus of Sicily's Bibliotheca Historica 15, 60-77, Plutarch's Life of Pelopidas, and Aeschines' oration On the Embassy. You'll be able to get all of these online on public domain (i.e. really old) translations. I can only make an informed recommendation for a Plutarch translation if you want to invest on a good, up-to-date translation with full notes and introduction, and that's Waterfield's Oxford Classic translation.

For secondary reading, I'd go to Blackwell's and/or Brill's companions on Ancient Macedonia, see what they have on Alexander II, and they should point you to the direction of any secondary reading, if there is some to be found. The companions are ridiculously expensive though so you'll prob need to go to your closest university library to get access to them. Also, I haven't gotten my hands on one myself but Elizabeth Carney's recently published collection of essays on Macedonian court might be worth checking out as well.

Good luck with your project and let us know how you get on, interesting stuff!

I own Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, and it's a shame the only section with missing philosophers, is the Stoic section.

Furthermore in the Zeno piece has definitions of the four cardinal virtues (part 93) and only the wisdom and courage parts survive, the ones for justice and temperance are lost.

For those interested, I'd highly recommend picking up this work, particularly the latest edition put out by Oxford last year. It's entertaining, informative, and absolutely beautiful.

I suggest that you do some reading on ancient history before you go interpreting ancient warfare through the lens of 20th/21st century culture. Some good starting points would be Arrian, Freeman and Sheppard. I suggest that you start with this source, which provides a good insight into the way the ancients viewed warfare and its connection to their lives.

With the victory of the Grancius River, Alexander's Macedonians were in bouyant moods, yet the cities of Asia Minor stood in their way and soon the Great King himself was looking to respond.


Follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/ApocHistory

Sources for the Episode.
By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) By Ian Worthington
A Companion to Ancient Macedonia by Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington
A History of Macedonia by R. Malcolm Errington
Alexander the Great by R. Lane Fox

Metaxas was an immensely popular leader in Greece. I hear that this biography does a good job at shedding light on his personality. https://www.amazon.com/Popular-Autocracy-Greece-1936-1941-Political/dp/0714648698

This site focuses on his regime as well. I have noticed a few mistakes in some of the articles, but overall it brings up some interesting points and you can find some of his speeches and quotes there too.

http://metaxas-project.com/the-fascist-hero-who-changed-the-course-of-history/

The anthem of his regime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy0f_pR_SRU

History student here.

I took an early western civ class last semester in which we read and analyzed Plutarch's The Life of Alexander The Great

Plutarch was a Roman who died somewhere in the early 100's AD (iirc) he was a Greek historian who wrote 23 biographies on famous men up to Plutarch's time in history. The series is called Parallel Lives and each biography is written parallel of one Greek and one Roman. IE Alexander and Julius Caesar.

Also, the book should be cheap and the text can be read in one sitting, my book is only 70some pages. Still an interesting read as it is one of a only a handful of extant tertiary sources on Alexander the Great, something my professor just about hammered into my skull.

Hope this helps.

Quick edit: Just thought I would toss you the link to it on amazon, right here.

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

Plutarch has a slightly different version of the encounter as is related in Alexander the Great: Lessons from History's Undefeated General by Bill Yenne.

>Alexander, like his father and like so many of history's greatest generals led from the front. He went wide to his right, taking the Companion Cavalry across the Granicus and circling behind the Persian left flank. Here he engaged the cavalry led by Mithridates and Spithridates, who were apparently stunned to find Macedonians outflanking them from their rear so early in the battle.
>
>It hadn't exactly been easy for Alexander, though. As Plutarch writes in his Life of Alexander the Great, Alexander "gained the opposite banks with difficulty and much ado, though they were moist and slippery with mud, and was at once compelled to fight pell-mell and engage his assailants man by man, before his troops who were crossing could form into any order. For the enemy pressed upon them with loud shouts, and matching horse with horse, plied their lances, and their swords when their lances were shattered. Many rushed upon Alexander, for he was conspicuous by his buckler and by his helmet's crest, on either side of which was fixed a plume of wonder size and whiteness. But although a javelin pierced the joint of his breastplate, he was not wounded."
>
>Indeed, in the hand-to-hand combt, ALexander is said to have broken two spears fighting the Persians at close range. He also lost the horse that he was riding that day - he had chosen for some reason not to use Bucephalas - to a Persian spear.
>
>Meanwhile, as the Persian left and right were dashing to meet attacks both real and perceived, Alexander's phalanx forced its way across the Granicus to strike the Persian center, which now had no support from its flanking cavalry.
>
>The flight in the center began with the difficult struggle by Alexander's men to get across the river. Once joined on the other side, the battle must have been vicious, but the Persians with their shorter spears would have been no match for the men with the 18-foot sariss, the fearsome Macedonian spear.
>
>As the Greco-Macedonian spearment sliced through the Persian Phalanx, they threatened the rear of the Persian cavalry that had turned 180 degrees to face Alexander and the Companion Cavalry. By this time, Parmenio, having faked the earlier attack on the Persian right, actually did cross the Granicus.
>
>As for Alexander himself, he soon found himself facing the Persian cavalry commanders man to man. Mithridates, also leading from the front, was well ahead of his troops, presenting Alexander with an opportunity. This he took, ramming his spear straight into the Persian general's head, and knocking his lifeless body from his horse.
>
>At this point, Spithridates and his brother, Rhoesaces turned to attack Alexander. As Plutarch describes it, Alexander avoided Spithridates, but "smote Rhoesaces, who wore a breastplate, with his spear, and when this weapon snapped in two with the blow, he took to his sword. While he was thus engaged with Rhoesaces, Spithridates rode up from one side, raised himself up on his horse, and with all his might came down with a barbarian battle-axe upon Alexander's head. The helmet's crest was broken off, together with one of its plumes, and barely resisted the blow, so that the edge of the battle-axe touched the topmost hair of his head. But while Spithridates was raising his arm again for another stroke, Cleitus, 'Black Cleitus,' got the start of him and ran him through the body with his spear. At the same time Rhoesaces also fell, smitten by Alexander's sword."
>
>Writing in his Bibliotheca Historia, or Historical Library, Diodorus Siculus tells a slightly different story...

The book then relates Diodorus Siculus version, which is detailed in the Wikipedia article.

PS: e.g. I was thinking of getting one or both of the following by Ian Worthington which while nominally 'biographies' feel like they might give me a sense of the overall sweep of history for the period (former has bonus of general interestingness of Athens and Athenian politics, latter presumably more detailed from a military organisation perspective)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Demosthenes-Athens-Fall-Classical-Greece/dp/019993195X

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philip-II-Macedonia-Ian-Worthington/dp/0300164769/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2EJ24RJ5N00MMK47CJMT

There is a book to go with the series.

I can also recommend everything else Michael Wood has done (once you have seen Alexander). He is a great historian and an amazing presenter.

Bitter Lemons by Lawrence Durrell (for some reason listed as Bitter Lemons of Cyprus) describes the life and political situation in 1950s Cyprus as the colonial era comes to an end and the Enosis revolt begins

Anyone have any opinions of Agnes Savill's Alexander the Great and His Time? I just got home with a copy from my mom.

-----------------------------

Book Reviews

------------------------------

Plato, John M. Cooper (ed.) (1997):Complete Works reviewed by Seth Bernadete (registration needed)

Plato, Malcolm Schofield (ed.), Tom Griffith (tr.) (2009): Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras, reviewed by C.C.W. Taylor

Plato, Bruce Alexander (narrator) (2001): The Trial and Death of Socrates: Apology, Phaedo (audiobook), reviewed by Gerald Fenech

------------------------------

Neel Burton (2009): Plato's Shadow: A Primer on Plato, reviewed by Gareth Southwell

• reviewed by Alec McEachran
  
  Bettany Hughes (2011): The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens and the Search for the Good Life, reviewed by David Evans
  
  Berel Lang, Charlton Heston (narrator) (2006): Giants of Philosophy: Plato (audiobook), reviewed by Justin Marley
  
  Robin Waterfield (2009): Why Socrates Died, reviewed by Charlotte Higgins