Alexander the Great: A New History
2009; University of Toronto Press; Volume: 53; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1353/mou.2009.0007
ISSN1913-5416
Autores Tópico(s)Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
ResumoReviewed by: Alexander the Great: A New History Adrian Tronson Waldemar Heckel and Lawrence A. Tritle, Eds. Alexander the Great: A New History. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Pp. xx+366. CAD $57.95 (pb). ISBN 978-1-4051-3082-0. Each generation constructs its own Alexander according to prevailing social and political preconceptions. This attractive, scrupulously edited [End Page 202] collection of sixteen original essays by experts from three continents gives a cross-section of the present state of Alexander scholarship. Topics both familiar and unfamiliar (Alexander’s deification, relationship with Greeks and Macedonians, Macedonian background, bisexuality, mother’s influence, image in art and film, and impact on the East) reflect current methodologies and theoretical stances. Concise but copiously annotated, these interpretations (most around twenty pages) open new approaches and invite reassessment of long-held assumptions. There are monochrome illustrations, two colour plates, a map of Alexander’s campaigns, a time-line and a detailed general index. Genealogical tables would have been helpful for the first three chapters. The first and second chapters provide the background and narrative, while the third analyses the aftermath of his death. The remaining thirteen examine key aspects of his career. This format is a stimulating counterpoint to the usual biographical approach. Notably, in contrast to the paranoid, megalomaniac killer who inhabits the studies (passim) of Badian, Milns, Bosworth, Worthington and Cartledge,1 we find a “rational,” pragmatic Alexander, resembling, though less sentimental than, the earlier constructs of Wilcken, Tarn and Radet.2 Michael Zahrnt (Chapter 1, “The Macedonian Background”) traces Macedonia’s rise from Persian vassalage and Greek exploitation to its dominant position in bc 339. Given the Argeads’ well-attested determination to enter the Hellenic orbit, there are some surprising lacunae: for instance, Alexander I’s assiduous presentation of himself as a “Hellene” after 480 and Archelaus’ Hellenization of Macedonia at the end of the century.3 Amyntas III gets fuller treatment for his stabilization of the dynasty and recognition as a Hellene (11), as do Alexander II and Perdiccas III but the controversial fragment of the court historian, Anaximines (FGrH 72), which attributes to Alexander II the institution of the hetairoi and pezetairoi is not mentioned. 4 Philip II’s military achievements, relationship with Athens and response to the contemporary panhellenic movement (21–24) are succinctly discussed. Surprisingly, his diplomatic and propagandistic skills and coinage are ignored (12), even though his political marriages and those he arranged for others, as well as his conduct of the Sacred War as a crusade on behalf of Apollo, were crucial in respectively securing his frontiers and boosting his reputation as [End Page 203] a panhellenic champion. Furthermore, his adoption of divine trappings and introduction of certain Persian institutions, which set important precedents for Alexander and his successors, escape mention. The objectives and implications of his Persian campaign are not fully teased out (21–23). Evidence may suggest that Philip had the opportunity to invade Asia around bc 350 (23) but it does not support Zahrnt’s contention that he would have conceived of the idea before he had won control of Delphi in bc 346, or, if he had, that his ambitions would have exceeded the current “Cilicia-Sinope doctrine” (Isoc. 5.120). Heckel’s trenchant chapters (2: “Alexander’s Conquest of Asia,” and 4: “A King and his Army”) resurrect Andreotti’s pragmatic and rational Alexander of fifty years ago.5 He prunes the sources of authorial inferences about his character and perceived motives and focuses on attested events. Alexander’s apparent “irrational” actions are therefore constructs based on accounts of primary witnesses who misunderstood new protocols, such as proskynesis and the adoption of Persian dress, as “gestures towards the defeated” (46–47). Likewise, Heckel dismisses the “reign of terror” after the return from India as “housecleaning” (51). In Chapter 4, he interprets Alexander’s response to real or suspected conspiracies as a reasonable reaction to the growing discontent among his officers and its potentially demoralizing effect on the army. However, to normalize Alexander as a ruthless professional underrates the consensus in the ancient sources concerning his emotional instability, his reliance on fortune and excessive religiosity, factors that gradually alienated him from his...
Referência(s)