What do you think?
Rate this book
Alejandro Magno
Esta obra no es una biografía de Alejandro Magno, figura histórica célebre por sus conquistas y el Imperio que edificó, en estas páginas se exponen los principales aspectos de un fenómeno histórico que no puede reducirse a la única persona de Alejandro Magno, sea cual sea la importancia que se reconozca al elemento personal―, sino que se extiende a cuestiones más generales. El relato propiamente dicho de la conquista ha sido concentrado en un corto capítulo preliminar, que permitirá al lector tomar conciencia de las grandes fases cronológicas de la conquista, pero lo esencial del desarrollo está dedicado al examen de las grandes cuestiones que nos planteamos de forma los orígenes de la conquista, así como los objetivos de Alejandro Magno; la naturaleza y la importancia de las resistencias; la organización de los territorios conquistados; y las relaciones que existían entre los conquistadores y las poblaciones conquistadas
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
17 people are currently reading
216 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Briant
54 books35 followersPierre Briant (born September 30, 1940 in Angers) is a French Iranologist, Professor of History and Civilization of the Achaemenid World and the Empire of Alexander the Great at the Collège de France (1999 onwards), Doctor Honoris Causa at the University of Chicago,
He studied History at the University of Poitiers (1960–1965), and reached his doctorat d'État in 1972.
His works deal mainly with the Achaemenid Empire, and related matters as Alexander the Great or the Hellenistic Era.
Known for: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire
He studied History at the University of Poitiers (1960–1965), and reached his doctorat d'État in 1972.
His works deal mainly with the Achaemenid Empire, and related matters as Alexander the Great or the Hellenistic Era.
Known for: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
October 7, 2021
Pierre Briant is the foremost European researcher of the Achaemenid Empire of his generation, so his insights on their adversary are worth our attention.
He presumes a familiarity with the main facts of the Conquest, because he is too busy re-evaluating motifs behind the mainstream orthodoxy that the public has been fed by an uncritical reading of ancient Greek sources.
His Empire in the making was always in some kind of peril coming from the rear, where military power remained concentrated in Macedonian hands while the Persian nobility was cautiously reinstated.
He often was at odds with his Macedonian nobles over this, while Darius marshalled fresh armies again and again. Exactly why he lost the war remains a bit elusive, but there was definitely more spine to him than the famous mosaic suggests.
Such was Alexander's core policy, pragmatic to a fault, because like the British in the Raj, there were more lands to rule than he brought hands. It fits Alexander into a universal imperial narrative, at odds with modern preoccupations of a universal humanist narrative that can assume Christ like proportions.
True to his profession, Briant shows the holes in the historiography that an annual flood of publications cannot fill.
Still, he's Alexanderesque in his aspiration to demolish the xenophobia of Arrian & company towards Persia, where prostating before a king did not make you a God, at best God's representative on Earth as both Chinese emperors or European absolutists would've recognized it.
He presumes a familiarity with the main facts of the Conquest, because he is too busy re-evaluating motifs behind the mainstream orthodoxy that the public has been fed by an uncritical reading of ancient Greek sources.
His Empire in the making was always in some kind of peril coming from the rear, where military power remained concentrated in Macedonian hands while the Persian nobility was cautiously reinstated.
He often was at odds with his Macedonian nobles over this, while Darius marshalled fresh armies again and again. Exactly why he lost the war remains a bit elusive, but there was definitely more spine to him than the famous mosaic suggests.
Such was Alexander's core policy, pragmatic to a fault, because like the British in the Raj, there were more lands to rule than he brought hands. It fits Alexander into a universal imperial narrative, at odds with modern preoccupations of a universal humanist narrative that can assume Christ like proportions.
True to his profession, Briant shows the holes in the historiography that an annual flood of publications cannot fill.
Still, he's Alexanderesque in his aspiration to demolish the xenophobia of Arrian & company towards Persia, where prostating before a king did not make you a God, at best God's representative on Earth as both Chinese emperors or European absolutists would've recognized it.
November 26, 2022
Another deceptively titled book from Princeton Publishers
At this stage I’m one book away from thinking it is no longer a coincidence, fortunately though unlike 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed even if the title is misleading it is still a quality work.
What you get here isn’t so much an introduction to Alexander the Great and his empire but instead an introduction to the study of Alexander the Great and his empire, specifically the importance of work being done in/on Persia when it comes to meaningfully expanding our understanding as opposed to rehashing the same information under new moral lenses.
Though it is only short a huge amount of work has gone into this.
3.5
At this stage I’m one book away from thinking it is no longer a coincidence, fortunately though unlike 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed even if the title is misleading it is still a quality work.
What you get here isn’t so much an introduction to Alexander the Great and his empire but instead an introduction to the study of Alexander the Great and his empire, specifically the importance of work being done in/on Persia when it comes to meaningfully expanding our understanding as opposed to rehashing the same information under new moral lenses.
Though it is only short a huge amount of work has gone into this.
3.5
July 20, 2019
I had wanted to read a basic biography of Alexander because I realized I didn't have a clear grasp on his life and story. I kept hearing all these different tales about him and wanted a book that had them all collected and organized. This is not that book. Instead, this is a much more academic look at Alexander's empire and multitude of ways to interpret it. So while my understanding of Alexander the person is still wanting, this book did wonders to my understanding of Alexander the historical figure. As my knowledge of Hellenistic studies is about zero, I was unaware that Briant is apparently one of the major scholars in the field. His gravitas is certainly backed up in this book, as his mastery of the subject as well as the historiography is on full display. His sources are highly varied and meticulously organized, and his treatment of secondary sources is precise and merciless. It was initially odd how Briant would directly and unashamedly critique other scholars in the main body of the text, but as the book went on it was more apparent he did so because he felt he both had to and was able to. Likewise it was surprising to see how often Braint would cite his old works. But for Briant he could not move forward with explaining Alexander's Empire without building upon or breaking down past arguments. Briant's academic focus on the Achaemenid Empire certainly was clear in his thesis of to understand Alexander's Empire you need to understand the empires he conquered. By only following sources directly related to Alexander, the whole story is not told, and one gets a heavily biased view of the Macedonian. But by broadening the scope of the sources and the questions asked, a better image is created. Any major questions on how Alexander's empire functioned would only be partially answered without the use of non-Greek sources. By delving into the Anatolian, Persian, Indian, and more sources, a more complex and encompassing view of the empire can be made.
January 22, 2015
I found this book a very nice way to get acquainted with such an important man as Alexander the Great. The book is richly illustrated; that helps me understand by visualizing.
There is something remarkable about the process of conquering territory. I hope you’ll excuse me the expression: it’s like chewing gum in the sense that by stretching the material – by going further and further into unknown surroundings – the matter gets all the more fragile. At last your fate is on an utterly thinning thread, which is a threat. With all his admirable efforts, Alexander’s life was short, yet legendary. JM
There is something remarkable about the process of conquering territory. I hope you’ll excuse me the expression: it’s like chewing gum in the sense that by stretching the material – by going further and further into unknown surroundings – the matter gets all the more fragile. At last your fate is on an utterly thinning thread, which is a threat. With all his admirable efforts, Alexander’s life was short, yet legendary. JM
April 21, 2022
El libro me pareció bastante interesante, porqué no se centra en la biografía de Alejandro magno, busca más problematizar y analizar sus conquistas, gestas y acciones. Esto lo hace de una manera muy concisa, el libro es cortó y además muchas afirmaciones las hace con cuidado puesto que es bien sabido que el estudio de la antigüedad tiene bastantes vacíos y contradicciones.
En la introducción y el primer capítulo, tenemos un acercamiento a los maestros del joven Alejandro cómo Aristóteles y Leónidas, se nos menciona la figura que jugó su padre Filipo II, y el misterio de su muerte, así también se nos menciona como Alejandro aseguró la retaguardia en Grecia, por último tenemos un breve acercamiento a las conquistas del macedonio desde Asia menor, pasando por Egipto, y Persia, terminando en el norte de india, y posteriormente, su muerte.
En el segundo capítulo, se centra sobre las mismas conquistas del hijo de Filipo II, para ello es necesario reflexionar sobre la motivación de este a aventurarse en Asia menor, hay factores un tanto subjetivos, como el deseo de Gloria, el ir más allá o el ser tal como un héroe homérico, lo cierto es que él siguió la empresa que su padre ya había proyectado e iniciado, como una forma de represalia ante los ataques persas a los griegos, lo cierto, es que esto no quedó en una simple venganza sino que fue más allá. Alejandro, siempre aseguró la retaguardia, lo que no queda claro es que tanto querían los pueblos ser "liberados". En la india, Alejandro fue allí por qué era un lugar muy conocido por los persas aquimenidas.
El tercer capítulo, sobre las resistencia, es claro que en varios pueblos existió una férrea defensa en contra de los macedonios, y másas con muerte de Darío III, este último ha sido muy infravalorado por la misma historia, este siempre lucho hasta el final. En las resistencias, existió una guerra de guerrillas a la cual tuvo que adaptarse Alejandro, los griegos también tenían intención de sublevarse en caso de que se presentarán perdidas con Alejandro, igualmente los soldados ante el cansancio exigían volver a casa.
El cuarto capítulo, sobre el papel administrativo de Alejandro, hay mucho debate sobre el mismo, este tuvo un papel importante, aunque en muchos lugares dejo la administración que estaba, intentó sacar el mayor provecho de los pueblos subyugados, no hizo muchos cambios en la circulación de monedas, dio órdenes más que todo para la defensa y protección de los pueblos ante los rebeldes, un problema fue que mucho de su imperio dependía de él.
En el último capítulo está la relación del macedonio entre griegos y persa, el conquistador siempre se adaptó a las nuevas costumbres y tradiciones de cada cultura conquistada, esto lo hacían más que todo adoptado sus ritos o casándose, cosa que también hacían sus generales, era muy común el uso de vestimenta persa, en última, el macedonio quería una igualdad entre ambos pueblos y un ejército mixto, aunque algunas veces, como la quema de templos de Persépolis, mostraba la superioridad griega.
En conclusión un libro para pensar muchos temas debatibles de un hombre tan importante.
En la introducción y el primer capítulo, tenemos un acercamiento a los maestros del joven Alejandro cómo Aristóteles y Leónidas, se nos menciona la figura que jugó su padre Filipo II, y el misterio de su muerte, así también se nos menciona como Alejandro aseguró la retaguardia en Grecia, por último tenemos un breve acercamiento a las conquistas del macedonio desde Asia menor, pasando por Egipto, y Persia, terminando en el norte de india, y posteriormente, su muerte.
En el segundo capítulo, se centra sobre las mismas conquistas del hijo de Filipo II, para ello es necesario reflexionar sobre la motivación de este a aventurarse en Asia menor, hay factores un tanto subjetivos, como el deseo de Gloria, el ir más allá o el ser tal como un héroe homérico, lo cierto es que él siguió la empresa que su padre ya había proyectado e iniciado, como una forma de represalia ante los ataques persas a los griegos, lo cierto, es que esto no quedó en una simple venganza sino que fue más allá. Alejandro, siempre aseguró la retaguardia, lo que no queda claro es que tanto querían los pueblos ser "liberados". En la india, Alejandro fue allí por qué era un lugar muy conocido por los persas aquimenidas.
El tercer capítulo, sobre las resistencia, es claro que en varios pueblos existió una férrea defensa en contra de los macedonios, y másas con muerte de Darío III, este último ha sido muy infravalorado por la misma historia, este siempre lucho hasta el final. En las resistencias, existió una guerra de guerrillas a la cual tuvo que adaptarse Alejandro, los griegos también tenían intención de sublevarse en caso de que se presentarán perdidas con Alejandro, igualmente los soldados ante el cansancio exigían volver a casa.
El cuarto capítulo, sobre el papel administrativo de Alejandro, hay mucho debate sobre el mismo, este tuvo un papel importante, aunque en muchos lugares dejo la administración que estaba, intentó sacar el mayor provecho de los pueblos subyugados, no hizo muchos cambios en la circulación de monedas, dio órdenes más que todo para la defensa y protección de los pueblos ante los rebeldes, un problema fue que mucho de su imperio dependía de él.
En el último capítulo está la relación del macedonio entre griegos y persa, el conquistador siempre se adaptó a las nuevas costumbres y tradiciones de cada cultura conquistada, esto lo hacían más que todo adoptado sus ritos o casándose, cosa que también hacían sus generales, era muy común el uso de vestimenta persa, en última, el macedonio quería una igualdad entre ambos pueblos y un ejército mixto, aunque algunas veces, como la quema de templos de Persépolis, mostraba la superioridad griega.
En conclusión un libro para pensar muchos temas debatibles de un hombre tan importante.
November 10, 2013
A Crash Course about Alexander's Extensive Empire
A few persons in the course of the thousand years of history had their names engraved in the minds of successive generations the way Alexander the Great did, capturing the imagination of the adventurous, as well as the dreams of those seeking glory. It is his brief existence combined with his extraordinary deeds that has given him such a legendary status, yet it is also why our portrayal of him is marred with lots of exaggerations and pure lies. In this book, Pierre Briant, a professor of ancient history at the University of Toulouse, tries to give us a quick glimpse of what Alexander might have really been through tracking his numerous battles, settling in the cities he conquered, and meeting his companions. His aim is to let us draw an outline that is mostly resemblant to Alexander's life, but -- as we will find out -- one which is drawn in a hurry.
The book naturally follows the path of Alexander's conquests and major life events in chronological order, starting from a few years prior to his birth up to a few years post his death. The book's introduction gives a quick setting for the battles between Alexander and the Persians through two centuries of animosity between the two civilizations, in which Persia had the upper hand under the influence of its "Great Kings", spurring conflict between the weakened Greek cities. It wasn't until King Philip, Alexander's father, that the Greek cities were unified through the rise of Macedonia to face the Persians. Philip's untimely death would then pave the way for his young son of twenty-years of age to hold the absolute power of the army and later to earn a legendary status at such a young age.
The book is filled with accounts about the well-known events of Alexander's early life. Before embarking on the one-way trip towards Persia, we learn about his brilliance in subduing Bucephalus, the rebellious stallion, at a very young age; his wit in loosening the Guardian Knot that was said to be impossible; and his wisdom being tutored by none other than Aristotle himself. There are also other accounts that show his respect of women and culture through the treatment of his Greek enemies. Yet, the first chapters also refer to the influence the Persian culture had upon Alexander's political and spiritual choices even before him setting a foot outside of the Greek empire.
The author, being a specialist in Persian history, spends a great deal praising the diversity of culture within the Persian empire and refuting the Greek propaganda against Persians that was abundant at that time. His treatment of Alexander's character is highly influenced by this, as he sometimes hints that Alexander's adoption of some Persian policies in the conquered Persian cities was more of a fondness of the culture and a spiritual influence, rather than a pragmatic approach. An argument for this is that toward's the advanced stages of Alexander's expedition, after conquering most of the Persian empire, he started to act as a Great King by living lavishly in place of the his previous relative modesty, by becoming more open to diversity, and by exercising autocracy in place of the Greek democracy, especially with his companions.
It is important to notice, however, that Alexander's motives are not clear, and that's perhaps why his life was interpreted in so many ways after his death. What might be seen as an act of generosity by some historian might be considered an act of deception by another, and vice versa. Moreover, it might be that Alexander's action were most influenced by his hunger for glory, something that might have been increased by the conviction of being semi-divine as he was told by a priest in the oasis of Siwa. Whatever his motivations might turn out to be, his desire for expanding his empire is far more evident. Hence, the way he treated his enemies and their cultures was an important factor for him to achieve this goal.
Alexander's military genius is well chronicled through his numerous battles. It all begins with him fighting other Greek cities in his father's army, then, after his father's success in unifying the Greeks and his subsequent assassination, driving west freeing Greek cities in Asia minor. The consecutive defeats of the Persians led their Great King, Darius III, to lead a huge army in the battle of Issus to meet Alexander. What follows is a chase between Alexander and the fleeing Persian king who managed to escape, leaving all his family in Alexanders custody. The chase ends with Darius III getting assassinated by his companions, something Alexander will punish them for while on his conquest towards the eastern part of the empire.
As Alexander's empire expands, we realize how fragile it becomes. The constant state of conquering was not sustainable by any means, especially that eight years of constant struggle has left lots of men yearning for going back home. In the last years of his expedition, Alexander faced stiff resistance from his own soldiers as well as from populations and governors of previously conquered cities. And while he kept a constant flow of reinforcement from various parts of his enormous empire, his wins in present-day India, the east-most part of his empire, were merely superficial and were not to last. Succumbing to the pressure of his men, Alexander returned to Babylon fighting with rebels along his way. His death was not far off, leaving his desire to return to Greece after conquering Arabia unfulfilled.
The years after Alexander's death were said to be filled with conflicts among his companions over his empire, even his body too! Eventually, those who took large portions of the empire made themselves kings, while others were so weak to maintain what they had gained. The records of Alexander's battles were kept by historians accompanied his expedition, but what reached us was mostly based on the works of early historians who wrote about Alexander after his death, including the memoirs of Ptolemy, a military general in Philip's army and one of the closest companions of Alexander who later became the king of Egypt. Those historians used to write a rather legendary version of Alexander usually due to personal affection and national pride.
The dependence of this book on these early sources is evident in the bibliography and the references on almost every page. Yet, it is in the "Documents" section, which is located in the end of the book, that we learn that these sources are not to be trusted fully. Indeed, it is easy to detect exaggeration and superstition most of the times, but an early heads up would have been better to make the reader more cautious while reading the text. Also, the excerpts in this section seems to be arbitrarily chosen than following a certain thread, giving an impression that there's some missing information, or the presence of irrelevant information. For example, we have been told several times that medieval Islamic scholars used to praise Alexander a lot, but we were not given the slightest hint of why so. However, and to the credit of the book, despite the rush of the narration and the flush of information, I have become, in a short time, much more casually informed about Alexander's life than before reading it, thanks to the concise text and its accompanying fair visual aids.
This book is not for everyone: While a casual reader of the subject, like myself, might find it somewhat amusing and informative, a more serious enthusiast or a scholar would probably find it incomplete and rudimentary. This is a characteristic of the DISCOVERIES series to which this book belongs; it is like watching a documentary that will give you an amount of information that is just like Alexander's empire proved to be: extensive, yet fragile.
A few persons in the course of the thousand years of history had their names engraved in the minds of successive generations the way Alexander the Great did, capturing the imagination of the adventurous, as well as the dreams of those seeking glory. It is his brief existence combined with his extraordinary deeds that has given him such a legendary status, yet it is also why our portrayal of him is marred with lots of exaggerations and pure lies. In this book, Pierre Briant, a professor of ancient history at the University of Toulouse, tries to give us a quick glimpse of what Alexander might have really been through tracking his numerous battles, settling in the cities he conquered, and meeting his companions. His aim is to let us draw an outline that is mostly resemblant to Alexander's life, but -- as we will find out -- one which is drawn in a hurry.
The book naturally follows the path of Alexander's conquests and major life events in chronological order, starting from a few years prior to his birth up to a few years post his death. The book's introduction gives a quick setting for the battles between Alexander and the Persians through two centuries of animosity between the two civilizations, in which Persia had the upper hand under the influence of its "Great Kings", spurring conflict between the weakened Greek cities. It wasn't until King Philip, Alexander's father, that the Greek cities were unified through the rise of Macedonia to face the Persians. Philip's untimely death would then pave the way for his young son of twenty-years of age to hold the absolute power of the army and later to earn a legendary status at such a young age.
The book is filled with accounts about the well-known events of Alexander's early life. Before embarking on the one-way trip towards Persia, we learn about his brilliance in subduing Bucephalus, the rebellious stallion, at a very young age; his wit in loosening the Guardian Knot that was said to be impossible; and his wisdom being tutored by none other than Aristotle himself. There are also other accounts that show his respect of women and culture through the treatment of his Greek enemies. Yet, the first chapters also refer to the influence the Persian culture had upon Alexander's political and spiritual choices even before him setting a foot outside of the Greek empire.
The author, being a specialist in Persian history, spends a great deal praising the diversity of culture within the Persian empire and refuting the Greek propaganda against Persians that was abundant at that time. His treatment of Alexander's character is highly influenced by this, as he sometimes hints that Alexander's adoption of some Persian policies in the conquered Persian cities was more of a fondness of the culture and a spiritual influence, rather than a pragmatic approach. An argument for this is that toward's the advanced stages of Alexander's expedition, after conquering most of the Persian empire, he started to act as a Great King by living lavishly in place of the his previous relative modesty, by becoming more open to diversity, and by exercising autocracy in place of the Greek democracy, especially with his companions.
It is important to notice, however, that Alexander's motives are not clear, and that's perhaps why his life was interpreted in so many ways after his death. What might be seen as an act of generosity by some historian might be considered an act of deception by another, and vice versa. Moreover, it might be that Alexander's action were most influenced by his hunger for glory, something that might have been increased by the conviction of being semi-divine as he was told by a priest in the oasis of Siwa. Whatever his motivations might turn out to be, his desire for expanding his empire is far more evident. Hence, the way he treated his enemies and their cultures was an important factor for him to achieve this goal.
Alexander's military genius is well chronicled through his numerous battles. It all begins with him fighting other Greek cities in his father's army, then, after his father's success in unifying the Greeks and his subsequent assassination, driving west freeing Greek cities in Asia minor. The consecutive defeats of the Persians led their Great King, Darius III, to lead a huge army in the battle of Issus to meet Alexander. What follows is a chase between Alexander and the fleeing Persian king who managed to escape, leaving all his family in Alexanders custody. The chase ends with Darius III getting assassinated by his companions, something Alexander will punish them for while on his conquest towards the eastern part of the empire.
As Alexander's empire expands, we realize how fragile it becomes. The constant state of conquering was not sustainable by any means, especially that eight years of constant struggle has left lots of men yearning for going back home. In the last years of his expedition, Alexander faced stiff resistance from his own soldiers as well as from populations and governors of previously conquered cities. And while he kept a constant flow of reinforcement from various parts of his enormous empire, his wins in present-day India, the east-most part of his empire, were merely superficial and were not to last. Succumbing to the pressure of his men, Alexander returned to Babylon fighting with rebels along his way. His death was not far off, leaving his desire to return to Greece after conquering Arabia unfulfilled.
The years after Alexander's death were said to be filled with conflicts among his companions over his empire, even his body too! Eventually, those who took large portions of the empire made themselves kings, while others were so weak to maintain what they had gained. The records of Alexander's battles were kept by historians accompanied his expedition, but what reached us was mostly based on the works of early historians who wrote about Alexander after his death, including the memoirs of Ptolemy, a military general in Philip's army and one of the closest companions of Alexander who later became the king of Egypt. Those historians used to write a rather legendary version of Alexander usually due to personal affection and national pride.
The dependence of this book on these early sources is evident in the bibliography and the references on almost every page. Yet, it is in the "Documents" section, which is located in the end of the book, that we learn that these sources are not to be trusted fully. Indeed, it is easy to detect exaggeration and superstition most of the times, but an early heads up would have been better to make the reader more cautious while reading the text. Also, the excerpts in this section seems to be arbitrarily chosen than following a certain thread, giving an impression that there's some missing information, or the presence of irrelevant information. For example, we have been told several times that medieval Islamic scholars used to praise Alexander a lot, but we were not given the slightest hint of why so. However, and to the credit of the book, despite the rush of the narration and the flush of information, I have become, in a short time, much more casually informed about Alexander's life than before reading it, thanks to the concise text and its accompanying fair visual aids.
This book is not for everyone: While a casual reader of the subject, like myself, might find it somewhat amusing and informative, a more serious enthusiast or a scholar would probably find it incomplete and rudimentary. This is a characteristic of the DISCOVERIES series to which this book belongs; it is like watching a documentary that will give you an amount of information that is just like Alexander's empire proved to be: extensive, yet fragile.
Read
July 19, 2019There is the Man the myth and the war he waged.
This book is about the wars Alexander waged and their overview. It has great pictorial descriptions to go along with the narrative.
You will know what Alexander did, but you will not know why he did it.
That's for a different book.
This book is about the wars Alexander waged and their overview. It has great pictorial descriptions to go along with the narrative.
You will know what Alexander did, but you will not know why he did it.
That's for a different book.
September 14, 2024
Indulging my Alex-mania further after having spent the last fortnight immersed in Mary Renault's stunning recreation of ancient Macedon. This should be a good primer as I plan to dive again into the following volumes of Renault's opus.
November 29, 2022
A well written and informative book.
March 5, 2024
Interesting overview of Alexander. I skimmed through the primary source documents at the end, to be honest, but the authors work was enjoyable.
May 7, 2025
it was pretty solid, i wish there was more about his personal life but i'm still content with this book
December 5, 2019
I typically do some research before picking up any given book on a topic. I went into this with minimal knowledge of Alexander the Great, and everything I read indicated that this book is a great, broad-perspective, introductory book to the topic. It was interesting in the way it directly discussed the administration of Alexander's empire and the peculiarities of his politicking and empire-building, but the narrative is dragged down by Briant's historiography and the jumpiness of his story-telling, which seems anything but chronological. Much more academic than expected, and certainly not the book for the casual reader or anyone who would rather read about Alexander's great pitched battles and journey into India instead of debates surrounding Alexander's adoption of Persian etiquette and the moral weight of his legacy.
December 6, 2011
Translated by Jeremy Leggatt. A very short work in the Discoveries series, jam-packed with photos of appropriate art works. The text was unsatisfactory, being a mere run-down of Alexander's campaigns against Darius and into India, giving no picture of the man himself. Did he love his wife? His lovers? Why was he so driven? What were his relations with his men like? These are just some of the questions that the slim volume fails to answer.
October 2, 2023
Es un libro práctico otra entender los acontecimientos bélicos en la vida de Alejandro Magno. Personalmente me gusto y me intereso la forma narrativa que no es una biografía convencional aún que sí quiero profundizar más en el tema de Alejandro Magno por lo que quiero leer alguna novela histórica.
Muy bueno para los que quieren saber la cronología.
Muy bueno para los que quieren saber la cronología.
January 18, 2013
Adequate and heavily illustrated introduction to Alexander, his world, and his accomplishments. This is a book to read quickly to see if you want to know more. It is not a book to quote or go in depth. It is satisfying on that level only.
May 15, 2016
Being my first book about A the G, I found his life interesting and his accomplishments bold. I appreciated the author's attempt to question whether he was attempting to dominate or civilise the lands he plundered. Three wives, just for show!
April 26, 2012
Pierre Briant is an Alexander apologist, but his book is fun to read. He completely avoided Alexander's alcoholism.
June 15, 2016
The entire posture of the book seemed to be defensive. To a lamen, his criticisms and charges against the popular histories of Alexander did not mean much!
March 27, 2017
Beautifully illustrated little book on the legendary king general.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews