Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afg

Hellenistic Culture and Society

by Frank L. Holt, Peter Green (Foreword)

The so-called first war of the twenty-first century actually began more than 2,300 years ago when Alexander the Great led his army into what is now a sprawling ruin in northern Afghanistan. Frank L. Holt vividly recounts Alexander's invasion of ancient Bactria, situating in a broader historical perspective America's war in Afghanistan.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Greece, Military History, Ancient History, Middle East, Classics

264 pages, ebook

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Frank Lee Holt is a Central Asian archaeologist and author. He is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Houston, and is recognized as one of the leading authorities on Alexander the Great, Hellenistic Asia, and numismatics. Holt received his PhD in History from the University of Virginia.

Holt has written five books and almost fifty articles, primarily concerning Alexander the Great and the Hellenization of Afghanistan.

Reviews

[Ozymandias · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about a very difficult topic: Alexander’s campaigns in Bactria (modern Afghanistan). The reasons for the difficulty here is that this is a subject only lightly touched upon by our sources – their main interests are Alexander’s glorious victories over Darius and intrusion into exotic India. Not the repetitive and depressing list of massacres and sieges that occupied his time in Bactria. His Bactrian campaigns nonetheless form an important moment in the narrative of his reign: this is where the sources first start to express some doubts about Alexander’s character. The suppression of the pages’ rebellion, the execution of Parmenion and Callisthenes, the drunken murder of Kleitus, the insistence upon proskynesis and “orientalization” of his rule, etc. The accounts we do have focus on these aspects and leave the military events by the wayside. In addition, that other source of detailed information from the past – archaeology – is largely hidden from us because, y’know… Afghanistan. It takes a real expert on the region to pick apart the disparate pieces to form a coherent narrative that both holds up to historiographical scrutiny but also the fractured geography and culture of the region. Fortunately, Holt is exactly that and better still is a determined popularizer of his particular area of expertise. This is a very easy read for someone with even a casual interest in the subject.

That said, in this case the manner in which he chooses to popularize this account makes me deeply uncomfortable. Specifically, he openly espouses a direct connection between Alexander’s campaigns and the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. A good historian (and there is no question but that Holt is that) must always be deeply cautious in promoting modern parallels, and I feel that here this caution gets thrown utterly to the wind. This is made clear from the very beginning:

“What George W. Bush has called ‘the first war of the twenty-first century’ actually began on a different autumn day more than twenty-three hundred years ago, when Alexander the Great launched the initial invasion by a Western superpower to subdue Afghanistan and its warlords.”

Not subtle. Nor is referring to Bactrians as “a rogue regime that harbored terrorists and warlords” or continuously using words like cabal, superpower, or insurgents. How ridiculous is it to imply a continuous stream of Western invasions of Afghanistan when the next invasion comes two millennia later with the British? Unless the Islamic Conquests are to be counted under that vague umbrella term of “Western”.

The most egregious example of anachronism has got to be this section though, where he compares Bush’s post-9/11 speech to Congress with Alexander’s speech encouraging his men to march into Bactria:

”In what he called a new and dangerous world, Alexander warned his followers that these resourceful criminals would continue to exploit differences of religion, language, and culture to rouse attacks against innocent victims. They must be confronted with overwhelming military force, and stopped; their leaders must answer–dead or alive–for their crimes.”

This is a wholly inaccurate summary of Quintus Curtius (the source). I’ve included the whole speech at the end, but the essential summary of each paragraph is:

1. Under my brilliant leadership we have won great glory, conquered so many great peoples and freed many Greeks from the barbarians.
2. I would stop now, but until all barbarians are enslaved we will never be safe (this is the main section he references)
3. It would be shameful for us, having defeated a great king, to let his slave take his place (instead of me) – this is undermining your glorious victory.
4. It's not that far to go (hah!) and will be super easy I promise, and when we are done the Persians we have enslaved will learn to be more submissive.

Bush’s speech (link below) is much longer, but the basic points are:

The American People have come together in the face of tragedy, the rest of the world is with us, “enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country”, we demand the Taliban turn over all members of al Qaeda and any foreign nationals imprisoned there, terrorists hate us because of our freedom and democracy, we are now in a war to protect these values that will not be won in a single battle, we have been hurt but that has given us a mission to defend freedom, God is on our side.

Aside from the idea that a specific Afghan regime poses a threat to Us (loosely defined) there’s not much congruence there. Talk of freedom perhaps, but that speaks more of America’s self-conscious borrowing of Greek rhetoric than eerie similarity. Even there, Alexander’s goal isn’t freedom for all but the enslavement of non-Greeks so that Macedonians can be their masters without challenge. And, on top of all that, the entire speech was made up! Quintus Curtius wrote it (in Latin no less) 400 years after Alexander’s death. There’s no reason to think it reflects contemporary viewpoints. Holt knows this of course, and given his almost obsessive focus on strict accuracy and avoidance of speculation in other books (he harshly criticizes Tarn, Narain and a horde of others for being insufficiently cautious when using numismatics to create narrative) it’s surprising how willing he is here to twist the sources around or take dramatic anecdotes at face value so long as it serves his story.

Another issue for me is that he’s telling a tale of growing character corruption and despair which only works by ignoring the rest of Alexander’s career. I fail to see anything unique about Alexander’s treatment of Bactria. Pretty much his first act as king was to sack Thebes – one of the greatest cities in Greece – for rebelling against Macedonian rule. Every Theban was either killed or sold into slavery and the walls and buildings were torn down and their rebuilding banned. And this was a city from which Al claimed personal descent! The atrocities in Bactria may differ in number but hardly in kind – Alexander always responded to defiance with maximum prejudice. The collapse of authority in Bactria also seems little different from the norm. Macedonian history is a long list of feuds and assassinations. The six kings preceding Alexander were all assassinated or killed in battle, having generally done the same to their predecessor. Al had his uncle and half-brother murdered as soon as he came to the throne, and barely was his body cold before his successors were tearing the empire apart in murderous wars. The entire Hellenistic Period is filled with assassinations, rebellions, and wars for personal gain (he calls the Hellenistic Era “the one ancient era in which modern societies can recognize themselves”, which strikes me as yet another odd tie). Bactria may have been worse than other regions but given how far away from the center of power it was this cannot be much of a surprise. What I find much more surprising is that it remained under Greek rule for almost two centuries after this, outliving independent Macedon itself! At the very least there is a huuuuuge amount of relevant background material being left out here.

I find this lack of nuance deeply frustrating because there are some universal characteristics that he identifies which apply as much then as now. The difficulty of Afghanistan’s terrain and the way it narrows invaders’ approaches truly does shape the conduct of wars there. The ease with which insurgents (that word at least is a reasonable anachronism) can vanish into mountainous and untraceable terrain must always have increased the ease of (and therefore local reliance on) insurgency. In valleys so isolated local territory must always have been impossible to control centrally, leaving unusual amounts of power in the hands of local warlords. I’m a bit unsure whether I fully accept all of the direct comparisons between Afghan and Bactrian warlords (Islam is a huge factor, and Afghanistan has had major population changes over two millennia) but there are certainly some similarities there. A radical independent streak seems fairly continuous. All of this must have impacted how Bactria as much as Afghanistan was run. I like the idea of a cultural comparison, if only it was toned down and less dogmatic.

Holt is an expert on Bactrian history (particularly numismatics, which are what pretty much all his books are about) so he knows a lot about the local setting. I’ve read other books which cover Alexander’s Bactrian campaigns, so I have to admire how clear his explanation of what is going on is. The description of the terrain and its restrictions (while let down by a pair of disappointing and unhelpful maps) really captures the strategic rationale behind Alexander’s campaigns. It was also interesting to read a bit about Bactria itself, although there isn’t as much there as I might like, partly because the story begins with Alexander’s arrival, partly because… Afghanistan. It was a heavily urbanized and wealthy region, which is pretty much the opposite of the situation now. This illuminates the war about as well as it is possible to do given our sources. Only an expert on the region could give an account like this, making this book indispensable in many ways.

So I have obviously mixed feelings about this book. I neither like nor agree with the contemporary connections drawn, but I do appreciate the clear and informed reconstruction of Alexander’s strategy and goals in Bactria. The modern relevance was obviously made explicit to appeal more to the general reader, who may be otherwise uninterested in a distant time and place but who cares deeply about what happens with the present War on Terror. I suspect that the calculation paid off: most general readers will probably find it satisfying and illuminating. I’ll bet it was passed around at army barracks in Afghanistan as soldiers sought an explanation for their endless struggle. I personally feel that I would much prefer his less dogmatic and more grounded book Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia. As near as I can tell it is a more scholarly account (based on his PhD thesis) which covers the same information as this one only without all the efforts at being relevant. And without the need to contort the narrative to form a literary account it can dive deeper into questions like Bactrian society before Alexander and the economy and culture. I personally would start there.

* * * * Sources * * * *

Bush’s Address to Congress:
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...

The relevant lines of Quintus Curtius:

When you look back, soldiers, upon the greatness of the deeds which we have done, it is not surprising that you feel a desire for repose and a satiety of glory. To say nothing of the Illyrians, the Triballi, Boeotia, Thrace, Sparta, the Achaeans, the Peloponnesus in general, some of whom I have subdued under my own leadership, others under my command and auspices, lo! beginning war at the Hellespont, we have freed the Ionians and Aeolis from slavery to a savage barbarian, we have made ourselves masters of Caria, Lydia, Cappadocia, Phrygia, Paphlagonia, Pamphylia, the Pisidians, Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, Armenia, Persia, the Medes, and Parthienê. The provinces of which I have taken possession outnumber the cities which others have captured, and I verily believe that in enumerating our exploits their very number has caused me to forget some of them. Therefore, if I believed that the possession of the lands which we have so quickly subdued were wholly secure, I myself, my soldiers, even if you wished to hold me back, would rush to my home, to my mother and sisters, and to the rest of our fellow countrymen, in order that there rather than elsewhere I might enjoy with you the praise and glory which we have won, where the richest rewards of victory await us, the happiness of our children, wives and parents, the repose of peace, the carefree possession of the fruits of our valor.

“But in a new and, if we wish to confess the truth, insecure empire, to whose yoke the barbarians still submit with obdurate necks, there is need of time, my soldiers, until they are trained to milder dispositions, and until better habits appease their savage temper. The fruits of the earth also look forward to ripeness at its appointed season, so true is it that even those things, devoid of sense as they are, nevertheless grow soft in accordance with a law of their own. Well, then! Do you believe that so many nations accustomed to the rule and name of another, united with us neither by religion, nor customs, nor community of language, have been subdued in the same battle in which they were overcome? It is by your arms that they are restrained, not by their dispositions, and those who fear us when we are present, in our absence will be enemies. We are dealing with savage beasts, which lapse of time only can tame when they are caught and caged, because their own nature cannot tame them. And I am so far speaking as if our arms had subdued everything that was under the sway of Darius. Nabarzanes has taken possession of Hyrcania, the murderer Bessus not only holds Bactra, but he also threatens us; the Sogdiani, Dahae, Massagetae, Sacae, and Indi are independent. All these, as soon as they see our backs, will follow them; for they are of the same nation, we are of an alien race and foreigners. Moreover, everyone obeys his own rulers with better grace, even when he who dominates them can be more feared. Accordingly, we must either give up what we have taken, or we must seize what we do not yet hold.

“Just as in ailing bodies, my soldiers, physicians leave nothing which will do harm," so let us cut away whatever stands in the way of our rule. Often to have ignored a tiny spark has roused a great conflagration. Nothing is safely despised in an enemy; one whom you have scorned you make stronger by neglect. Not even Darius received the rule of the Persians by right of succession, but he was admitted to the throne of Cyrus by the favor of Bagoas, a eunuch; so do not suppose that it will be hard labor for Bessus to seize a vacant kingdom. We certainly committed a sin, soldiers, if we conquered Darius for the purpose of turning over the sovereignty to his slave, who, having dared the worst of crimes, held his king in fetters, like a captive, even when he was in need of aid from without, and whom we, the victors, would surely have spared, and finally slew him in order that he might not be saved by us. Will you suffer such a man to rule? A man whom I, for my part, am in haste to see nailed to a cross, thus paying a well-deserved penalty to all kings and nations, and to loyalty, which he desecrated. But, by Heaven! if presently it shall have been announced that the same wretch is laying waste the cities of the Greeks and the Hellespont, what grief will you feel that a Bessus has robbed you of the fruits of your victory! Then you will hurry to recover what is yours, then you will take up arms. But how much better it is to crush him while he is still in fear and almost beside himself.

“A march of four days is left for us, who have trodden so many snows, have passed over so many rivers, crossed the heights of so many mountains. Not that sea, which with its rising tide covers the road with its waves, delays our march, not the passes and narrows of Cilicia shut us in, the whole country is level and easy. We stand on the very threshold of victory. A few runaways and slayers of their master remain for us. A noble work, by Heaven! and one to be numbered among the chief of your glorious deeds you will hand down to posterity and to fame, namely, that you have avenged even Darius, your enemy, having ended your hatred of him after his death, by slaying his murderer, and that no impious man has escaped your hands. When this has been accomplished, how much more submissive do you think that the Persians will be, when they know that you undertake pious wars, and that it is the crime of Bessus, not the Persian name, that inflames your wrath?”

[Gaijinmama · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read on a subject that to my knowledge is not covered that often. Speaking as someone who loves history but is not academically trained in the subject, I found it a bit dry in places, which is why I took more than a year to get through it! The journey was worth the effort, however, which cannot be said about Alexander's invasion of Afghanistan...or that of any other foreign invader since. Current policy makers should take a lesson from history and realize that this region is simply not conquerable. Period.
It didn't work for Alexander, the British Empire, or the Soviet Union, and it has not turned out well for the U.S. What was that quote about the definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Heavy sigh. I guess we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. My impression, and I dare say the author's, is that the people of this region will continue to scatter to the hills, and kick our (and each other's) collective butts when we start to get arrogant. Sad, tragic, but inevitable.

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this book up in, of all places, Loreto, Baja California Sur, MX in the only store I've seen in Mexico totally devoted to books, and most of them were in English. Loreto is a small town on the shores of the Gulf of California that caters to tourists and has an American ex-pat community.

Bones is a discourse on not only on Alexander's time in what was then known as Bactria, but also an extended essay on the difficulties of gaining information on this period. In so doing, you learn a lot about the roots of current Afghanistan problems: the closed tribal culture, a nationally counterproductive distrust of authority, the conflicts of tribal warfare, a sizable drug economy, and corruption in government.

One of the things I learned from this book is the important role numismatics played in relaying the history of this area. With Alexander's army came historians who wrote about Alexander and his campaigns. But the time before and after Alexander are largely bereft of illumination. If it were not for the durability of coinage, the existence of Afghanistan kingdoms may have never come to light.

It is unfortunate that so many of the treasures that would have informed us about the events and personalities of that period have been plundered, mostly by the Afghans themselves.

[Sleepy Boy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book that delves into the parallels of combat today in Afghanistan and combat in what was then known as Bactria under Alexander the Great. I never knew that the age old problems and feuds of Afghanistan today ran beyond the British invasions in the 1800's. It would seem that we have yet to learn anything from history regarding this region.

[Lirazel]

Unfortunately for me, this was a military history aka my least favorite kind of history. But the conclusion had some interesting stuff about archaeological evidence and the appendix was actually a great little summary of the limitations of ancient sources. Plus it’s important to remember that historians like Holt were yelling at the US government that it is a very very bad idea to invade Afghanistan. They were warned! All this has happened before, all this will happen again.

One day I will find my dream book about ancient Bactria’s Greco/Persian/Indian/Buddhist/native culture!!! Central Asia, no one else does history like you do!!!

[Fadi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in the middle of the Afghan War, Alexander's campaign in Bactria is revealed without sparing any shocking details. Sadly, like many of the Hellenistic states and cities, little evidence has survived the ravages of war and time. The Kabul Museum was ransacked and over the course of two centuries, most of the finds were sold through middlemen to wealthy private collectors.

[Cas ♛]

Unfortunately it became a lot less relevant to my research the further through I got (and less interesting, though that was for different reasons), I did feel that it wasn't quite what the synopsis advertised but nonetheless an interesting read exploring the history that has led to modern day Afghanistan, with a strong focus on Alexander the Great's campaigns in Bactria and what happened in the period after his death.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting book, the author discusses alexander's invasion of afghanistan and shows how history repeats itself with predictable results (the british, russians, u.s...). he kind of lost me with the last couple of chapters (they discuss coinage), so if you stop when he starts to go in depth about coins, you'll be okay!

[C.E. Case · Rating 5 out of 5]

Learned more about modern Afghanistan and ancient Alexander the Great from this short book than from any other sources throughout my life. Very clear and honest and critical. Hopefully after 2000 frickin' years we'll finally learn to stop invading.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book I would have liked the chance to have reviewed academically, because I looked at a later book of his that dealt with the little-known history of the Hellenistic Greek rulers of Bactria, which includes the area of contemporary Afghanistan. The author does something here that is quite insightful, and precisely what we would expect a historian to do, and that is to take insight and knowledge about an area that provides a long historical perspective and apply it to the historical situation, in this case the American involvement in Afghanistan. The author points out that as far back as the time of Alexander the Great that the area was difficult to rule and impossible to keep unified for long, with its fractious political nature and its lack of a real core to unify its disparate parts. In fact, the author may not be going nearly far enough to seek the reason for Afghanistan's status as such a difficult place to rule, which may go back to the destruction of the Bactrian civilization by the Aryans in the period around 2500 to 3000 BC, long before anyone bothered to write histories about the matter. by the time of Persia and Greece, though, we have history and it suggests common patterns that are worth knowing.

This book is a bit more than 150 pages, so it does not belabor its point, which is heavy-handed enough on its own. The book begins with a list of illustrations and a preface. After that the author gives an introduction that sets the context of the work in seeking to make a historical connection between America's involvement in Afghanistan and the involvement of Alexander the Great there (1). After that comes a look at the hunting of the enemy in Alexander's initial conquest (2), and the desperate struggle between the troops left behind and a rising guerrilla effort on the part of local warlords (3). After that the author discusses the hydra heads of numerous revolts that threatened the lives of Alexander's troops (4) as well as Alexander's use of tactics of love and war to attempt to encourage peace by an advantageous marriage on the one hand as well as brutal attacks on the other hand (5). After that the author discusses the dark shadows the region fell into after Alexander the Great that undermines expectations that things were peaceful (6), while also looking at the legacy of Greek control in Afghanistan and its fragility (7), as one can see by the record of archaeology. The book ends with a conclusion (8), as well as with appendices that discuss ancient sources, notes, a select bibliography, and an index.

This book is one of the few books that ends up being quite prophetic as a result of its sound historical analysis. Long before the long chain of problems in Afghanistan made itself clear, the author could tell not only from the Soviet and British experience in Afghanistan but also from Alexander's experience, that the ways of Afghanistan have long been hostile to Westerners and the interaction between Western imperialists and locals has been consistent. There has been no shortage of common threads in these interactions. Locals have met overwhelming force with sullen and apparent obedience, and as soon as most of the troops have gone away guerrilla war and a sound knowledge of the land leads to bad blood, and atrocities, and even when peace has been declared, the local warlords only look for weakness to attack again, and again, and again, until the situation remains as it was before. This has been the way of Afghan history, and the author is wise to see it as a pattern that is not going to be stopped simply because a few thousand American troops with high technology as well as horses enter the scene.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alexander the Great accomplished much and accumulated great swathes of lands and peoples. Most of those ventures are well documented and developed, but some corners of his expansive program are clouded with much unknowing. Frank l. Holt, professor of history at the University of Houston, award winning teacher and prolific author, presents some clarity in one corner of Alexander's empire building in the 260-page paperback "Into the Land of Bones". This is an account of Alexander's campaign into Bactria, modern-day Afghanistan.

In writing the book in 2005, the American involvement in Afghanistan was in its infancy. Therefore, the author's purpose in writing this volume "is to place our present ordeal into a broader perspective, to provide a useful historical and cultural background for those who ask: Into what long history have we suddenly thrust ourselves and our armed forces" (16)? And though the book is not about the American actions in Afghanistan, he does lightly weave into his chronicle our experiences up to 2005, along with the USSR's tenure in the land, and Britain's two 19th Century wars in that country. It's a fascinating read of the exploits, exploitations, stratagems and setbacks by the short-lived conquering king.

If you have interests in Alexander the Great, history, historical methodologies, Afghanistan, or ancient military tactics, this is just the book you need. But it will also help place some long-term historical contexts to our present interactions with that country. And so, if you work for the State Department or have been scandalized by our pull-out from Afghanistan, then this is a must read. I highly recommend the work.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short history of Alexander campaign into Bactria , modern day Afghanistan, as well as brief stint into the successor period as well. This book does a good job of explaining the complexities of the campaigns and the difficulty of the local environment both natural and the human kind. It also manages to sneak in a good bit of coin history and its use in archeology as well in the final chapter which was surprisingly interesting even for someone like me who has little interest in the subject. My only complaint with this other wise fine history is the author trying to compare "modern" campaigns to alexander's. I don't like having an author thrust his opinion on todays politics into there histories. The inferences to modern day campaigns our pretty obvious and doesn't require the author to point them out. I prefer to come to my own opinions on such things, but this is a minor gripe and the book is short enough that it never out stays its welcome. Worth a read

[Norman Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very interesting book about a fairly obscure part of Alexander's career. Most of the books I have read about Alexander have him going into Bactria, then there is a lot of milling around, and then he comes out to go into India. The author puts together a very reasonable description of what all the milling around was about.

He also ties it into the experiences of modern day intervenors in Afghanistan, and suggests that the motto for Afghanistan could be, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

My biggest complaint about this book is the opposite of my complaint about many books: it is too short. It is a very enjoyable book to read (that is to say, the style is enjoyable, though the subject matter is often appalling), and I would have been happier had there been more. The author does explain that as well; there are not many sources.

This is a very worthwhile book for anyone who is interested in Alexander, Bactria, and history.

[Stephen Morrissey · Rating 4 out of 5]

The quip is often made that even Alexander the Great could not conquer Afghanistan; Frank Holt's book is one of the first to put that phrase to the test of history with his insightful, short take on Alexander's troubles in Central Asia in "Into the Land of Bones." The book takes us into the armies of Alexander of Macdeonia, brimming with confidence and new allies after its victory over the Persian Empire. Alas, in modern-day Afghanistan (then called Bactria), the army encounters fresh difficulties: a dispersed population; jealous warlords; and the need to do an unmistakably un-military thing: build a new province of an empire.

Holt peppers his narrative with allusions to the two Afghan wars that the British fought in the 19th Century, the ill-starred Soviet invasion of 1979, and the early years of America's War on Terrorism in the Afghan region.

What is there to take away from Alexander's troubles in Afghanistan? Perhaps the lesson is simple: leave it alone, or face defeat.

[Kathy Piselli · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this an easily digested discourse on a difficult topic. What I learned is that the source material for Alexander is not without serious flaws and information on Bactria's history is scanty. They have to piece together names of kings from found coins! The book is academic in that it is sourced throughout, but it reads like a spoken lecture. It takes the trouble to place events within their time but the overall lesson is that little has changed since Alexander's time, and efforts to place this area under any kind of central control fails.

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely well researched and well written, "Into the Land of Bones" covers Alexander the Great's campaign in Bactria - modern day Afghanistan - as well as struggles during the Hellenistic period. The author also weaves in modern attempts of conquests, from British imperialists to USA's war on terror. Frank L Holt was able to examine ancient events through the modern prism without being anachronistic. A remarkable read, which also leaves profound sadness.

[Robin Rowland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concise, sharply written account of Alexander's attempted conquest of what is now Afghanistan and how that conquest/occupation didn't last long (at least as Alexander may have envisioned it). A warning for all current and future politicians and generals involved in the region. Also documents how wars have destroyed and continue to destroy Afghanistan's rich archaeological heritage.

[Stacie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting look at how Alexander the Great shaped Afghanistan and potentially continues to impact it today, but also how Afghanistan has stood out as a nation that defies those who try to conquer it. Very interesting read.

[Miguel Letain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely a very niche book. As someone with a major in classics I can safely say that this period of Alexander’s campaign is the least covered in any classes or history books. Since I studied this stuff in great detail, I found it very interesting and was quite happy to finally have something that fills in this gap in our historical knowledge. Also since I’m writing this review on August 16th, 2021, it could not be more relevant given that Kabul just fell to the Taliban yesterday, and Kandahar, a city which was founded by Alexander in 330 BC and which bears his name (Alexander was known as Iskandar in the Middle East and he named the city Alexandria Arachosia, so Iskandar became Scandar, became Candar, became Kandahar) was just taken a couple of days ago. Anyway, if you don’t have any prior knowledge about Alexander, I’d recommend you read a general book about him first, then read this book. Overall well written and a short, easy read.

[Coyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why did Alexander the Great invade Afghanistan? He was leading a coalition of slightly-less-than-willing Greek states on a campaign of revenge against the King of Persia. Alexander's goal was nothing less than "regime change" (11), with himself as the leader of the new regime. "Alexander announced... [that:] an aggressive preemptive policy would be put into play throughout the Middle East. Alexander made it clear that Persia's King Darius III must disarm and surrender or risk a fight to the finish. Under no circumstances could the alleged tyrant keep his throne." (12)
Having defeated Darius (who was killed by his lieutenants), the remaining leadership of the Persian Empire fled into the region that is now Afghanistan, where "Alexander denounced these men as lawless savages, the enemies of civilization. In what he called a new and dangerous world, Alexander warned his followers that these resourceful criminals would continue to exploit differences of religion, language, and culture to rouse attacks against innocent victims. They must be confronted with overwhelming military force, and stopped; their leaders must answer -dead or alive- for their crimes. Not to act was to jeopardize the safety of Greece itself. 'This is a noble cause', proclaimed Alexander to his armed forces, 'and you will always be honored for seeing it through to the end.'[Quoted from Quintus Curtius:]" (15)
What was the outcome of Alexander's efforts in Afghanistan? Lots of bloodshed. As soon as he would pacify one tribe, another would revolt against him, and when he moved on to engage that one, the one he had just pacified would rebel. In the end, the only way "peace" was created (albeit temporarily) was by 1) the establishment of permanent Greek cities full of veteran soldiers throughout the region, including "Alexandria on the Oxus" on the Amu Darya river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_Khanoum) and "Alexandria-the-Farthest" on the Syr Darya river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandr...). At the same time, 2) Alexander conscripted large numbers of the young men of the region (and killed lots of others) into his own army and took them with him when he moved on to invade India, attempted to remove the military force while holding hostages to ensure the locals' good behavior. Finally, 3) Alexander married Roxanne, the daughter of a powerful Afghan ("Bactrian") chieftan in what may have been an attempt to solidify the loyalty of at least part of the population of the region.

So what are the lessons from this?
First, Americans should read this book (particularly our policy makers, military minds, and lobbyists) in conjunction with The Man Who Would Be King The First American in Afghanistan, which is at least a glimmer of hope that we might not be totally inept in the region.
Second, assuming that we're not really willing to plant cities of millions of bellicose Americans throughout Afghanistan and deport millions of Afghans and scatter them across the US, all while marrying Obama to the daughter of a warlord (druglord? those are the new warlords in Afghanistan, right?), we need to seriously rethink our strategy. What should our new strategy be? I have no idea...

[Jack · Rating 2 out of 5]

Frank Holt's book bears some high praise from critics: "A compulsively readable book," raves Richard Stoneman; "The commanders of the Coalition forces in Afghanistan should be under orders to read it," states Jona Lendering, of the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. The former is incorrect, and the latter likely has little understanding of what a military commander is and how he spends his time.

This tome is brief and reads more like two or three essays that have been stitched together. Holt discusses British and Soviet incursions in Afghanistan at a time when the US was invading, but the references seem to be more anecdotal than substantial from the standpoint of meaningful comparison. An entire chapter is devoted to the digging up of coins and other sundry artifacts in the 20th century, and their subsequent sale. This is interesting trivia, and unfortunate from a research perspective, but the beef of the account of Alexander in Afghanistan is not enough to make a book without these addenda.

This book is neither a meaningful military campaign comparison, nor does it provide enough on its main subject. The extra chapters and the appendix are interesting, but they feel like sidebars and don't tie specifically to Alexander's story, just speak about later accounts and evidence. On the whole, the core of the book is worth reading and so are the "extra" chapters, just go in with your eyes open.

[Marybeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a pretty interesting (and also very short) book about, obviously, Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. I took a class last year and this book was recommended reading outside of class, and I finally got around to reading it. It's an interesting contrast/comparison of the different wars which were undertaken by various world powers in Afghanistan, and focuses on Alexander's conquest there as the first in I suppose a chain of invasions and wars. Though I know about Alexander I really didn't know much about his time in Afghanistan, and since the book itself is pretty short, I think it gave a good overview without being needlessly complex or oversimplifying things. The book also deals with the issues of lack of sources about Afghanistan and also what happened to a good deal of material evidence from the time periods during and after Alexander's presence there. All in all it was a pretty interesting read (with a very good quote about Alexander in the appendix, as well).

[Sandy Ferguson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned from this book the reality of how history can repeat itself. Holt does a wonderful job of exploring Alexander's campaign in Afghanistan, as well as exploring the parallels with the present NATO operations in Afghanistan. The name of Kandahar, a city often in the news, was named after Alexander as part of the Greek-Macedonian plan to establish military colonies to control the locals. Instead of his usual set-piece battles, Alexander has to deal with an insurgency practically springing up in every mountain. Instead of emerging from Afghanistan in glory, Alexander was lucky enough to emerge with his army, and avoided Afghanistan on his return.
I wish that all those politicians who tell us so glibly that the war can be won in Afghanistan would read this book, so they will have a better idea of what the reality of victory in Afghanistan will look like.

[Roger Burk · Rating 3 out of 5]

A slight book, 1/3 appendix, notes, bibliography and index, only 164 pages of text. But it tells an interesting story, so far as it is known--the story of Alexander the Great's campaigns in what is now Afghanistan. The problem is that there is rather little known--not much more than is contained in the ancient biographies of Alexander. The Greek kingdoms that continued in the area were so thoroughly destroyed by invaders a few centuries later that little is known of them beyond what can be gleaned from the coins they minted. The book mentions occasional connections to the current war--for instance, the name of the city of Kandahar is derived from the very name Alexander--but the case for any real continuity of culture is pretty weak, givent he repeated total transformations of the area as various barbarian hordes swept through.

[Zare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. It was very interesting to see very same mistakes taking place again and again through centuries - man has to accept that some places are too wild and remote and because of that very difficult to put under control of any kind.

These isolated parts of world should be left alone - if they ever choose to connect to any place other than their immediate neighbors let it be of their own will.

If you are interested in Alexander the Great this book will shine some light on a subject that even ancient Greeks avoided because it was the endeavor destined never to succeed.

Highly recommended.

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrific book. Holt is brilliant, writes beautifully and has spent his life working on the ancient history of Central Asia. this is a concise yet authoritative account of the first time a nation with seemingly overwhelming military force has marched into the treacherous mountains and valleys of the "Land of Bones." Every superpower that has invaded Afghanistan since the 4th Century BC has paid a bloody price before giving up and none have accomplished anything valuable.

[Ashley Mayer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frank Holt gives an intriguing account of Alexander's attempt to conquer Bactria (modern Afghanistan). Mr. Holt tells of all the trials and struggles Alexander put his men through, which eventually began the downfall of the health and the discipline of his army. The author's analysis is layed out in a way that shows the similarities between Alexander, the British, the Russian, and the US's attempts to conquer Afghanistan. This was a fascinating book to read!

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

I actually had the pleasure of listening to him talk about this book in one of my classes. He is a great person and an even better historian. This is an unique book that studies Alexander the Great's campaign in the area of present-day Afghanistan and compares it to what Britian and the US later did in that area. Holt explains the various battles and campaigns in that area and how it affected Alexander, his troops, and the world. This is a great book and highly recommend it!

[Mercurybard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Heavy on the comparison to the modern-day War in Afghanistan. I think I would like it more if it gave me the history and let me do the comparing.

The book was well-researched, but the information didn't seem to be as well-ordered as I would have liked (why is this coming at the very end of the book?, etc)

[Mariam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting account from a historian about Alexander the Great's war in the Bactria region. It was a quick and informative read but the references to modern day attempts at "conquering" Afghanistan seemed haphazard and forced, as if they were hastily inserted after most of the book was written.

3.5 stars overall.