What do you think?
Rate this book
Ancient Warfare and Civilization
Dzielenie łupów. Wojna o imperium Aleksandra Wielkiego
"Porywająca, dramatyczna opowieść"
Tom Holland, autor Perskiego Ognia
W niespełna dziesięć lat Aleksander Wielki zbudował jedno z największych imperiów w dziejach świata. Po niespodziewanej śmierci wielkiego zdobywcy w 323 roku p.n.e. nastało pół wieku zdrad, zmiennych sojuszy, rzezi i morderstw, gdy jego spadkobiercy, diadochowie, rozdzielali między siebie ogromne zdobycze Macedończyka; reperkusje tych burzliwych wydarzeń odczuwalne są do dziś w państwach bałkańskich i nie tylko tam. W tej ze swadą pisanej opowieści genialnie splatają się ze sobą polityką, wojna i kultura.
"Znakomite wprowadzenie [...]. Oddaje dramatyzm okresu po śmierci Aleksandra z pasją powieściopisarza".
"Military Times"
"Jeśli w ogóle możliwe jest zrozumienie wczesnej epoki hellenistycznej dzięki jednej książce, to prawdopodobnie dzięki tej właśnie"
Janice Gabbert "Choice"
Tom Holland, autor Perskiego Ognia
W niespełna dziesięć lat Aleksander Wielki zbudował jedno z największych imperiów w dziejach świata. Po niespodziewanej śmierci wielkiego zdobywcy w 323 roku p.n.e. nastało pół wieku zdrad, zmiennych sojuszy, rzezi i morderstw, gdy jego spadkobiercy, diadochowie, rozdzielali między siebie ogromne zdobycze Macedończyka; reperkusje tych burzliwych wydarzeń odczuwalne są do dziś w państwach bałkańskich i nie tylko tam. W tej ze swadą pisanej opowieści genialnie splatają się ze sobą polityką, wojna i kultura.
"Znakomite wprowadzenie [...]. Oddaje dramatyzm okresu po śmierci Aleksandra z pasją powieściopisarza".
"Military Times"
"Jeśli w ogóle możliwe jest zrozumienie wczesnej epoki hellenistycznej dzięki jednej książce, to prawdopodobnie dzięki tej właśnie"
Janice Gabbert "Choice"
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
110 people are currently reading
2442 people want to read
About the author
Robin Waterfield
110 books697 followersRobin Anthony Herschel Waterfield is a British classical scholar, translator, editor, and writer of children's fiction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
October 19, 2018
At just 212 pages of text, Robin Waterfield's Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire is a short overview of the struggles for supremacy between Alexander's successors during the forty years following his premature death. The wars and political maneuvers of this era created the three dynastic kingdoms -- the Antigonid, Seleucid and Ptolemaic -- that characterized Western history's Hellenistic period. Alexander's successors engaged in almost continuous warfare from 323-281 BCE – mixed with brief periods of rest and rearmament, political chicanery, diplomacy, intrigue, assassination, and intermarriage. For the elite Macedonian and Greek followers of Alexander, it was a time of breathtaking opportunity and mortal danger. The victors established kingdoms that dominated the Mediterranean, North Africa, and Western Asia until the rise of Rome.
Waterfield's book is well-written, informative, and a pleasant read. It is accompanied by a section of very good maps, a timeline, a thorough list of important people of the period, and genealogical trees of the dynasts and other key figures. It may be too broad for dedicated students of the era, but to a casual reader of history, it's worth Four Stars.
Waterfield's book is well-written, informative, and a pleasant read. It is accompanied by a section of very good maps, a timeline, a thorough list of important people of the period, and genealogical trees of the dynasts and other key figures. It may be too broad for dedicated students of the era, but to a casual reader of history, it's worth Four Stars.
July 26, 2016
I learned a lot from this and was absolutely glad I decided to read it.Not only does it explain the dividing of Alexander's empire after his death but also the social,religious,artistic and political circumstances of the times.It takes the reader through each Successor explaining how each was awarded territory and how they sought to control,hold and expand it while fighting for the ultimate prize of the the empire in it's entirety.I thought the military descriptions for some of the battles were sparse and not gone into at length and the author seemed to focus more on the politics.Which didn't make it an ideal book for me as I like learning about the actual military logistics.Aside from this though,I was impressed with the author's knowledge of the period and his ability to bring it all together in one readable,understandable and intelligent account.
October 17, 2017
Waterfield's contribution has the major distinction of joining Romm's Ghost on the Throne as pretty much one of the ONLY books in English covering the Successor Wars that followed the death of Alexander the Great. It's a damn shame, as this was a critical period in ancient history, one that gave rise of much of the cultural mores and geopolitical realities we take for granted today.
Waterfield, like Romm, does the topic justice. Waterfield lacks Romm's storytelling instincts or his poetic prose styling, and presents a more workmanlike account. it's also clear that Waterfield is deliberately avoiding hitting the sensationalist/dramatic high points of the story, which is to the book's detriment.
That said, it's a valuable contribution to the field and has the added bonus of placing the events in their cultural context. Waterfield, unlike Romm, leapfrogs chapters between narration and then laying down essay-like examinations of the world in which the events take place. Where Romm gives you the story in all its glory, Waterfield gives you a less glorious story, and a deeper understanding of the backdrop where that story unfolds.
Both approaches are valuable, and Dividing the Spoils is definitely worth your time.
Waterfield, like Romm, does the topic justice. Waterfield lacks Romm's storytelling instincts or his poetic prose styling, and presents a more workmanlike account. it's also clear that Waterfield is deliberately avoiding hitting the sensationalist/dramatic high points of the story, which is to the book's detriment.
That said, it's a valuable contribution to the field and has the added bonus of placing the events in their cultural context. Waterfield, unlike Romm, leapfrogs chapters between narration and then laying down essay-like examinations of the world in which the events take place. Where Romm gives you the story in all its glory, Waterfield gives you a less glorious story, and a deeper understanding of the backdrop where that story unfolds.
Both approaches are valuable, and Dividing the Spoils is definitely worth your time.
August 22, 2021
Robin Waterfield, noted British scholar, leads a forced march through forty years of Hellenistic history from Alexander's death in 323 BC to the death of Seleucus in 281 BC. He covers six wars on three continents, birth of five empires and a cast of fifty characters. In the wars of Alexander's successors, shifting alliances and political intrigue were matched by the ambition to rule the world they conquered.
It may help to have Wikipedia open in order to stay straight between Antigonus, Antigenes, Antipater, Antiochus, Aristonous, Aristodemus, Arrhidaeus, Asander and other actors from B through Z. The author adds sections covering art, literature, religion, economics and politics. These are mostly welcome digressions, yet inserted randomly they tend to interrupt the narrative flow.
The writing is clear although abbreviated. There is not much in the way of character sketches nor dramatic development. Primary sources are scarcer for Alexander's successors than for the earlier Greek periods. Secondary sources are well referenced by Waterfield for further study. This is a concise overview of a complex period, which could be followed with focus on areas of particular interest.
It may help to have Wikipedia open in order to stay straight between Antigonus, Antigenes, Antipater, Antiochus, Aristonous, Aristodemus, Arrhidaeus, Asander and other actors from B through Z. The author adds sections covering art, literature, religion, economics and politics. These are mostly welcome digressions, yet inserted randomly they tend to interrupt the narrative flow.
The writing is clear although abbreviated. There is not much in the way of character sketches nor dramatic development. Primary sources are scarcer for Alexander's successors than for the earlier Greek periods. Secondary sources are well referenced by Waterfield for further study. This is a concise overview of a complex period, which could be followed with focus on areas of particular interest.
June 11, 2012
I read an "uncorrected advance reading copy" of this book from Oxford University Press, not this beautiful hardcover.
Reconstructing a succinct history of the successors to Alexander the Great and of the early years of the Hellenistic period for a general readership is a daunting task. Sources are few and tendentious, focused on the major protagonists; contestants to his legacy are many; alliances, political and military, are complex, ever-changing and usually short lived. While the recent conflicts in, say, the former Yugoslavia were similarly complicated, they occurred in contemporary Europe within a much more limited scope, both geographically and temporally. The wars of the Successors occurred over two thousand years ago, ranged through much of three continents and lasted four decades. Understanding the first, while difficult, is possible. Managing a plausibly sensible reconstruction of the latter is well nigh impossible, even the best efforts being vulnerable to the emergence of new evidence. Robin Waterfield, an independent scholar based in Greece, has, however, managed to do this as best as it can be done in the compass of less than three hundred pages.
Waterfield manages the task by following three houses: the Antigonids, roughly identified with Macedonia; the Seleucids, with Asia; and the Ptolemies, with Egypt. A sixteen-page chapter, beginning with the death of Alexander in 6/11/323, sets up the history, which amounts, at its core, to an account of the wars of succession spanning the years 320 to 281 In this and in the following chapter he outlines what Alexander accomplished—viz., the semblance of a world-encompassing empire—and what he failed to accomplish—a viably stable polity. This, the dreams of imperial hegemony and the realities, economic and political, entailed in the realization of such, constitute the dynamic of the period: too many dreamers, schooled in successful conquests, dreaming similar, irreconcilable, dreams.
The period was, in short, one of almost unrelieved conflict, of wars and of the preparations for wars. With the notable exception of Egypt, the richest and most defensible of the regimes, government consisted primarily of resource acquisition and extraction, extraction through the means of military drafts; taxation; requisition, pillage; and, especially, outright conquest.
To his credit, Waterfield punctuates his survey with sociological and cultural asides, devoting sections of most chapters to such topics as kingship, cultural diffusion, legitimacy, individualism, poleis, scholarship, taxation, economics, education, religion and military technology and tactics. These and other asides flesh out the period to give sufficient sense of Hellenistic culture and of how ordinary, undocumented persons lived.
Supplementing the text are an array of useful aids. In addition to the expected notes, index and bibliography are maps, genealogies, illustrations, a timeline and, most importantly, “A Cast of Characters” which provides brief biographies allowing readers to distinguish between four Alexanders, three Philips, three Ptolemies and so on.
Best of all, Waterfield, an author of juveniles as well as being a classicist and translator, writes well and clearly. Like many of the most readable historians, he has a sense of humor, much of it darkly appropriate to the matters at hand, none of it obtrusive. Given some basic background in the history of Greece through Alexander, this book should be accessible to all readers and serve to fill the gap between the Macedonian imperialists and their successors, the Romans.
Reconstructing a succinct history of the successors to Alexander the Great and of the early years of the Hellenistic period for a general readership is a daunting task. Sources are few and tendentious, focused on the major protagonists; contestants to his legacy are many; alliances, political and military, are complex, ever-changing and usually short lived. While the recent conflicts in, say, the former Yugoslavia were similarly complicated, they occurred in contemporary Europe within a much more limited scope, both geographically and temporally. The wars of the Successors occurred over two thousand years ago, ranged through much of three continents and lasted four decades. Understanding the first, while difficult, is possible. Managing a plausibly sensible reconstruction of the latter is well nigh impossible, even the best efforts being vulnerable to the emergence of new evidence. Robin Waterfield, an independent scholar based in Greece, has, however, managed to do this as best as it can be done in the compass of less than three hundred pages.
Waterfield manages the task by following three houses: the Antigonids, roughly identified with Macedonia; the Seleucids, with Asia; and the Ptolemies, with Egypt. A sixteen-page chapter, beginning with the death of Alexander in 6/11/323, sets up the history, which amounts, at its core, to an account of the wars of succession spanning the years 320 to 281 In this and in the following chapter he outlines what Alexander accomplished—viz., the semblance of a world-encompassing empire—and what he failed to accomplish—a viably stable polity. This, the dreams of imperial hegemony and the realities, economic and political, entailed in the realization of such, constitute the dynamic of the period: too many dreamers, schooled in successful conquests, dreaming similar, irreconcilable, dreams.
The period was, in short, one of almost unrelieved conflict, of wars and of the preparations for wars. With the notable exception of Egypt, the richest and most defensible of the regimes, government consisted primarily of resource acquisition and extraction, extraction through the means of military drafts; taxation; requisition, pillage; and, especially, outright conquest.
To his credit, Waterfield punctuates his survey with sociological and cultural asides, devoting sections of most chapters to such topics as kingship, cultural diffusion, legitimacy, individualism, poleis, scholarship, taxation, economics, education, religion and military technology and tactics. These and other asides flesh out the period to give sufficient sense of Hellenistic culture and of how ordinary, undocumented persons lived.
Supplementing the text are an array of useful aids. In addition to the expected notes, index and bibliography are maps, genealogies, illustrations, a timeline and, most importantly, “A Cast of Characters” which provides brief biographies allowing readers to distinguish between four Alexanders, three Philips, three Ptolemies and so on.
Best of all, Waterfield, an author of juveniles as well as being a classicist and translator, writes well and clearly. Like many of the most readable historians, he has a sense of humor, much of it darkly appropriate to the matters at hand, none of it obtrusive. Given some basic background in the history of Greece through Alexander, this book should be accessible to all readers and serve to fill the gap between the Macedonian imperialists and their successors, the Romans.
June 6, 2023
The first half covers what Romm covers in Ghost on the Throne but the latter half covers all the way to the death of Seleucus and leaves us with Gonatas in Macedonia, Antiochus in Asia, and Ptolemy II in Egypt. Very interesting and readable and one of the few books about all 6 of the Diodachi conflicts. At times, it is very impersonal, treating the generals like statistics and even brushing over major battles in a single sentence to where I'd have to go look them up myself to get more intel, but still a highly recommended book for anyone with interest in the period.
Read
November 24, 2014Neither as detailed nor as readable as Romm's Ghost On The Throne, but it covers a wider period and has very valuable chapters on art and social changes.
February 9, 2014
i really enjoyed this book, i have always been interested in ancient history and in Alexander the great
this book shows the aftermath of Alexanders death and the struggles for his empire that followed - every bit as gripping as the spear won empire he created
this book shows the aftermath of Alexanders death and the struggles for his empire that followed - every bit as gripping as the spear won empire he created
September 25, 2017
A very clear account of the Successor Wars.
March 14, 2023
Great full overview of the Successor Wars. Neatly ties up the full story ending in 279 BC unlike Ghost on the Throne. DEMETRIUS THE BESIEGER
August 9, 2024
A solid introduction to a fascinating, dynamic yet ultimately disappointing part of history
The empire of Alexander the Great is just as famous for its large size as it is for its rapid collapse. However even if its collapse was relatively quick it was a process that lasted almost 50 years and spawned Hellenic empires that lasted for centuries. This book breaks down the process (which is a story of incredible cunning, ambition and treachery) which is interspersed with brief chapters on historical context.
Worth reading alone just to learn about fascinating individuals like Antigonus (and his son), Ptolemy, Seleucus and Eumenes.
Lastly a bit of fun -
The siege technology he had applied was truly impressive and innovative. As always, warfare accelerated the rate of technological advances—though for the time being only warfare benefited from man’s ingenuity. Archimedes’ screw, accurate water clocks, the rotary olive press, amazing gadgets for entertainment—all the remarkable, peaceful developments of later decades lay in the future, with the notable exception of the mechanical snail that by the command of Demetrius of Phalerum had led a procession in Athens in 308, excreting slime.
The empire of Alexander the Great is just as famous for its large size as it is for its rapid collapse. However even if its collapse was relatively quick it was a process that lasted almost 50 years and spawned Hellenic empires that lasted for centuries. This book breaks down the process (which is a story of incredible cunning, ambition and treachery) which is interspersed with brief chapters on historical context.
Worth reading alone just to learn about fascinating individuals like Antigonus (and his son), Ptolemy, Seleucus and Eumenes.
Lastly a bit of fun -
The siege technology he had applied was truly impressive and innovative. As always, warfare accelerated the rate of technological advances—though for the time being only warfare benefited from man’s ingenuity. Archimedes’ screw, accurate water clocks, the rotary olive press, amazing gadgets for entertainment—all the remarkable, peaceful developments of later decades lay in the future, with the notable exception of the mechanical snail that by the command of Demetrius of Phalerum had led a procession in Athens in 308, excreting slime.
February 7, 2017
This book wasn't the best that I have read on the subject but it wasn't bad. It doesn't go into as much detail as Ghost on the Throne by James Romm, but it covers a generation or two longer in time than Romm's book. Romm's book was extremely detailed but only covered the 20-30 years after Alexander's death. This book by comparison covers about 60 years or so.
I think that the last half of the book was better than the first in many ways. If there were characters covered more than the others it would have either been Antigonus One-Eye, Ptolemy, or Seleucus. I honestly don't know which of those is the more interesting as a character either. My favorite of the successors and the warring generals of the time though is still probably Eumenes, Alexander's Greek secretary who managed to fight the greatest of Alexander's Macedonian Companions to a standstill for years with little to no resources.
Not a bad book and I"m glad that I read it, although I can't say at this moment that Waterfield impressed me as much as Romm did.
I think that the last half of the book was better than the first in many ways. If there were characters covered more than the others it would have either been Antigonus One-Eye, Ptolemy, or Seleucus. I honestly don't know which of those is the more interesting as a character either. My favorite of the successors and the warring generals of the time though is still probably Eumenes, Alexander's Greek secretary who managed to fight the greatest of Alexander's Macedonian Companions to a standstill for years with little to no resources.
Not a bad book and I"m glad that I read it, although I can't say at this moment that Waterfield impressed me as much as Romm did.
December 29, 2022
This book is an excellent introduction to the aftermath of Alexander's death, a period marred by constant wars and shifting alliances between his generals as they fought to carve their own kingdoms and cemented their own legacy. Interspered throughout the text is background information on the era regarding religion and politics. And to top it all off, Robin Waterfield's writing style is quick and fluid, like a storyteller. Give it a try!
May 18, 2023
my greek history professor told me to read this book. thanks to my greek history professor for the book recommendation!! now, i'm not saying i wish that the sources and information about the wars of succession after alexander the great's death were destroyed, i'm just shocked anyone cares enough about this period to write a whole entire book about it. these wars were so goddamn stupid. i am shocked people as stupid as these warmongers didn't die as teenagers because they stuck their heads in the garbage disposal just to see what would happen or something dumb like that. i have no idea why these wars occurred. you have an EMPIRE and you START A WAR ANYWAY. this is such a STUPID historical period. the writing wasn't too impenetrable and i always wanted to be reading this book when i wasn't, although when i was actually reading it i was baffled both by the stupidity of the characters and also who was whom and what had just happened and what year it was and silly things like that. this is a good book to read for grandfathers who really like military history and have gone through all of the comprehensible wars.
February 12, 2025
I have long been a dedicated student of history, but the era between Alexander and the Roman rise in the Levant was always a blank spot for me.
This book filled that void wonderfully. It was extremely accessible and I had trouble putting it down once I'd get going. Waterfield does a brilliant job weaving the tapestry of this era together into something even a novice could comprehend.
Of course, this is not a hard-core history to me, and someone with more experience in this field may find it a tad superficial, but I quite liked it.
This book filled that void wonderfully. It was extremely accessible and I had trouble putting it down once I'd get going. Waterfield does a brilliant job weaving the tapestry of this era together into something even a novice could comprehend.
Of course, this is not a hard-core history to me, and someone with more experience in this field may find it a tad superficial, but I quite liked it.
May 16, 2025
Dividing the spoils is a great read on the wars of the successors, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It details all wars of the successors, so it crams in a lot to such a small thing, but it does it with a degree of masterful writing. Doesn't go overly in depth as is to be expected with so much to cover, but it goes in depth enough to teach and remain engaging. The structure is good, I enjoyed how it was written.
Many compare this with Ghost on the Throne, and it should be, but I feel like they both do what they set out to do, and you shouldn't read one over the other, but together, as they both present things that the other one doesn't. So I disagree that Ghost on the Throne should be read instead, but as I say, read with instead.
Overall this is a great book and one I definitely recommend to read.
Easy 5/5
Many compare this with Ghost on the Throne, and it should be, but I feel like they both do what they set out to do, and you shouldn't read one over the other, but together, as they both present things that the other one doesn't. So I disagree that Ghost on the Throne should be read instead, but as I say, read with instead.
Overall this is a great book and one I definitely recommend to read.
Easy 5/5
June 5, 2023
确有收获，但整体一般。
一方面是囿于史料的匮乏，另一方面是作者对于素材的安排似有欠妥之处：在作为主体的战争叙事之余，作者仍想要涵盖艺术、文化和经济层面的内容，然而两者的衔接显得颇为生硬；有时候为了保持某个章节的叙事流畅，又毫无预警地倒置时间线，徒增困扰。
除此之外，“安提柯侄子托勒密坐船来到科斯岛，与（埃及）托勒密商谈”这种句子也挺叫人挠头的，何况这括号还是我自己给加上的。不过这个确实是马其顿人自己在起名上的天赋问题，和作者无关了……
一方面是囿于史料的匮乏，另一方面是作者对于素材的安排似有欠妥之处：在作为主体的战争叙事之余，作者仍想要涵盖艺术、文化和经济层面的内容，然而两者的衔接显得颇为生硬；有时候为了保持某个章节的叙事流畅，又毫无预警地倒置时间线，徒增困扰。
除此之外，“安提柯侄子托勒密坐船来到科斯岛，与（埃及）托勒密商谈”这种句子也挺叫人挠头的，何况这括号还是我自己给加上的。不过这个确实是马其顿人自己在起名上的天赋问题，和作者无关了……
July 31, 2020
Easy to read, comprehensive look at what happened after Alexander died that covers *all of it* unlike some books (Ghost on the Throne). Truly one of the most turbulent periods of time I've read about. Go Ptolemy.
April 30, 2018
The author seemed to have forgotten that few names in the cast of characters are familiar even to those who read history. Writing as if they were, made the narrative confusing and difficult. I was disappointed that so much space was devoted to this and that battle rather than to how the Successors of Alexander developed their regions and the effects those Successors had on the history of the region.
The book isn't long and it isn't even ponderous. It was simply interesting.
The book isn't long and it isn't even ponderous. It was simply interesting.
January 9, 2023
This was one of the most enjoyable history books I have read in a while. Waterfield has an approachable, but literary style that makes his work easy to read, without reading like some soulless Wikipedia article.
In my opinion, the Wars of the Successors are among the most neglected topics in classical history education. We teach Alexander, then we jump to the Punic Wars, the Roman Triumvirates, and when we get to the triumph of Augustus at Actium, we say "oh, yeah, Cleopatra was a descendant of Alexander's general that took over Egypt." That is a real injustice. The Successors and the wars they fought shaped the world in which those highlights of history occurred.
I must credit Waterfield with that realization. He does an excellent job of contextualizing the Successors in both their contemporary Macedonian culture, Greek past, and larger Roman-Byzantine future. In short, he does a very good job of telling you why what he is writing about is important to know.
On a personal note, I find the whole period fascinating. Essentially, you have one of the greatest generals who had ever lived to that time surrounding himself with all the other greatest generals who had ever lived to that time. What happens when he dies? Who gets the lion's share? Is there any way that can be decided peacefully among so many men of war? Even as a fictional premise, that is intriguing, but this stuff really happened!
My criticisms of the book are mentioned in most of the other reviews. The cultural sections can take you out of the narrative. However, all these sections taught me something I didn't previously know, so they aren't pointless. They just tend to come right as you are getting really invested in the exploits of one of the characters. You can think of them as the new trailer for a movie that looks really interesting that interrupts the climax of a TV show as the first commercial of a commercial break. I also find the footnotes lacking. Waterfield puts them all at the back. I like it when they are at the bottom of the page, for easier reference, but that is a personal preference.
As a note if you read this book, he has a "Cast of Characters" in one of the indexes of the book. You will need that as you read to remember who's who. I wish I had known about it while I was reading. It really should be at the FRONT of the book, but whatever. That just gives me an excuse to read this again, which I will be doing.
In my opinion, the Wars of the Successors are among the most neglected topics in classical history education. We teach Alexander, then we jump to the Punic Wars, the Roman Triumvirates, and when we get to the triumph of Augustus at Actium, we say "oh, yeah, Cleopatra was a descendant of Alexander's general that took over Egypt." That is a real injustice. The Successors and the wars they fought shaped the world in which those highlights of history occurred.
I must credit Waterfield with that realization. He does an excellent job of contextualizing the Successors in both their contemporary Macedonian culture, Greek past, and larger Roman-Byzantine future. In short, he does a very good job of telling you why what he is writing about is important to know.
On a personal note, I find the whole period fascinating. Essentially, you have one of the greatest generals who had ever lived to that time surrounding himself with all the other greatest generals who had ever lived to that time. What happens when he dies? Who gets the lion's share? Is there any way that can be decided peacefully among so many men of war? Even as a fictional premise, that is intriguing, but this stuff really happened!
My criticisms of the book are mentioned in most of the other reviews. The cultural sections can take you out of the narrative. However, all these sections taught me something I didn't previously know, so they aren't pointless. They just tend to come right as you are getting really invested in the exploits of one of the characters. You can think of them as the new trailer for a movie that looks really interesting that interrupts the climax of a TV show as the first commercial of a commercial break. I also find the footnotes lacking. Waterfield puts them all at the back. I like it when they are at the bottom of the page, for easier reference, but that is a personal preference.
As a note if you read this book, he has a "Cast of Characters" in one of the indexes of the book. You will need that as you read to remember who's who. I wish I had known about it while I was reading. It really should be at the FRONT of the book, but whatever. That just gives me an excuse to read this again, which I will be doing.
September 20, 2019
Dividing the Spoils recounts the history of the chaos raised in the aftermath of Alexander the Great’s death. Starting the very day of his death, Alexander’s family, generals, and associates maneuvered, intrigued, and ultimately battled for the power to rule his nascent empire. This era is fascinating. Few other times in history are so packed with uncertainty, reversals of fortune, and ruthless characters – played out on the grandest of stages. Generals and armies rise and fall (and often rise and fall again), alliances form and are almost immediately broken, marriages seal pacts and then lead to disaster, and only those who are both lucky and strong survive.
I’ve read several books on this era (as well as many of the primary sources) so I’ll point out the particular merits and weaknesses of this retelling. First, this book is one of the best introductions to the full forty years or so that comprises the history of Alexander’s generation. It takes the reader from Alexander’s death all the way to the death of the last of his immediate successors. Second, it does so without following a particular successor or location to the detriment of others (in fact, it interestingly spends more time with Lysimachus and Demetrius, successors who often get short shrift by other authors, than one might expect). Third, the storytelling is fairly unladen with hero-worship or excessive trust of particular sources. Fourth, and much to its credit, it attempts to tell the history while also analyzing parallel developments in philosophy, art, and culture. No other history I have read attempts to draw connections between the wars and politics of the era with the societal evolutions of the time. In particular, the author espouses an interesting thesis that the era generated an expansion in individualistic thinking. Finally, the book contains an excellent set of appendices that includes a timeline, a list of the eighty or so major players, and a few genealogies.
The book does have some weaknesses, however. First, the book does not transparently use the sources. This is not to say that it does not cite its sources, but rather that I often could not discern on what basis it would choose to accept a source as fact, dismiss it entirely, or, more commonly, rely on the general idea of the source but not its details. Second, this latter approach leads to flatter exposition than similar books. The fun of reading history is often in the details, but this book chooses to relate the interactions at a high level of generality. So we get the general gist of what happened, but generally do not hear any details, even when the sources provide enormous (if often untrustworthy) color. Key events of momentous importance sometimes pass by without vividness or vitality.
Nonetheless, this is a worthwhile read, and a great source for making sense of a complex and turbid era.
I’ve read several books on this era (as well as many of the primary sources) so I’ll point out the particular merits and weaknesses of this retelling. First, this book is one of the best introductions to the full forty years or so that comprises the history of Alexander’s generation. It takes the reader from Alexander’s death all the way to the death of the last of his immediate successors. Second, it does so without following a particular successor or location to the detriment of others (in fact, it interestingly spends more time with Lysimachus and Demetrius, successors who often get short shrift by other authors, than one might expect). Third, the storytelling is fairly unladen with hero-worship or excessive trust of particular sources. Fourth, and much to its credit, it attempts to tell the history while also analyzing parallel developments in philosophy, art, and culture. No other history I have read attempts to draw connections between the wars and politics of the era with the societal evolutions of the time. In particular, the author espouses an interesting thesis that the era generated an expansion in individualistic thinking. Finally, the book contains an excellent set of appendices that includes a timeline, a list of the eighty or so major players, and a few genealogies.
The book does have some weaknesses, however. First, the book does not transparently use the sources. This is not to say that it does not cite its sources, but rather that I often could not discern on what basis it would choose to accept a source as fact, dismiss it entirely, or, more commonly, rely on the general idea of the source but not its details. Second, this latter approach leads to flatter exposition than similar books. The fun of reading history is often in the details, but this book chooses to relate the interactions at a high level of generality. So we get the general gist of what happened, but generally do not hear any details, even when the sources provide enormous (if often untrustworthy) color. Key events of momentous importance sometimes pass by without vividness or vitality.
Nonetheless, this is a worthwhile read, and a great source for making sense of a complex and turbid era.
February 19, 2025
Years of picking it up and putting it down because the names were always hard to keep track of. But then I gave it a go while on a cruise and was glad I finished it.
Understanding the kerfuffle, namely four big kerfuffles, that was the scramble to divide up Alexander the Great's empire by his generals is a good way to understand the nature of how Macedonian monarchies worked, the lasting impact of Alexander, and the unending mess that was dynastic marriages that would make a Hapsburg blush (especially the Ptolemies). Being able to see how much blood they spilled fighting each other, it's not at all surprising that Rome essentially conquered realms that were a shell of their former selves.
Understanding the kerfuffle, namely four big kerfuffles, that was the scramble to divide up Alexander the Great's empire by his generals is a good way to understand the nature of how Macedonian monarchies worked, the lasting impact of Alexander, and the unending mess that was dynastic marriages that would make a Hapsburg blush (especially the Ptolemies). Being able to see how much blood they spilled fighting each other, it's not at all surprising that Rome essentially conquered realms that were a shell of their former selves.
January 11, 2012
A very well written narrative of the seventy or so years that succeeded the death of Alexander the Great, and how his empire was divided by his successors, Dividing the Spoils is the first history written by Robin Waterfield, a translator who has translated many texts from the ancient world for Oxford Classics and other imprints. Dividing the Spoils is a narrative history largely aimed at a general audience, though it does nod at the scholarship on the subject, and does a good job of telling what is a very difficult story to tell, mostly because of the fragmentary nature of the surviving evidence for the period. It is a very good, readable introduction to a fascinating subject.
August 5, 2021
Brings some clarity to a complicated period
The period following the death of Alexander the Great is surely one of the more complicated in European/Middle Eastern history. This book manages to bring some clarity and transparency. It is also an excellent read. The stubble, it shows that in spite of all the violence and almost constant warfare, there were also major advances in other fields, including philosophy and (although less so) culture.
The period following the death of Alexander the Great is surely one of the more complicated in European/Middle Eastern history. This book manages to bring some clarity and transparency. It is also an excellent read. The stubble, it shows that in spite of all the violence and almost constant warfare, there were also major advances in other fields, including philosophy and (although less so) culture.
June 2, 2022
“The word spread rapidly through the city of Babylon and the army encampments around the city: “The king is dead!” Bewilderment mingled with fear, and some remembered how even the rumor of his death, two years earlier in India, had almost provoked mutiny from the Macedonian regiments. They had been uncertain as to their future and far from home; their situation was not much different now. Would the king stage yet another miraculous recovery to cement the loyalty of his troops and enhance his aura of divinity? Or was the rumor true, and was bloodshed sure to follow?....”
The Macedonian Empire was one of the world’s largest but, without doubt, its most ephemeral. It attained its greatest extent in 325 B.C. with Alexander the Great’s invasion of the Indus valley (today eastern Pakistan), at the end of a ten-year campaign of conquest in Europe, Asia, and North Africa.
But it began to collapse in 323 following Alexander’s sudden and unforeseen death. It existed in a full and relatively stable form for only two years.
The story of Alexander’s conquests is known to many readers, but the dramatic and consequential sequel to that story is much less well-known. It is a tale of loss that begins with the greatest loss of all, the death of the king who gave the empire its center.
“He died just when men most longed for him,” writes Arrian, one of the ancient historians who dealt with this era, implying both that Alexander’s talents were needed to keep the empire together and that the king had become an object of adoration, even worship, in the last years of his life.
The era that followed came to be defined by the absence of one towering individual, just as the previous era had been defined by his presence. It was as though the sun had disappeared from the solar system; planets and moons began spinning crazily in new directions, often crashing into each other with terrifying force.
The brightest celestial bodies in this new, overcast cosmos were Alexander’s apex military officers, who were also in some cases his closest friends.
Modern historians often denote them as “the Successors” (or “Diadochs,” a Greek word meaning almost the same thing).
But that term is old-fashioned for the first seven years after Alexander’s death, when none of these men tried to succeed the king; they vied for his power but not his throne.
This book tells the tale of one of the grand forgotten wars of history.
It took more or less four decades after the bereavement of Alexander the Great for his heirs (the Diadokhoi, the Successors) to finish carving up his vast empire.
“As soon as Alexander died, his empire began to crumble; he, not economic forces, had been holding it together. If Antigonus had not desired to emulate Alexander, if Demetrius the Besieger had not succumbed to megalomania toward the end of his life, if Seleucus had not had the courage to reclaim Babylon with a minimal force . . . a hundred such “ifs” could be written, each demonstrating that the Successors’ personal ambitions and passions could and did determine what happened.
History is not made only by great men, it is true, but nor is it made entirely by profit–loss calculations. More irrational and less predictable factors often play a part (as satirized in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22), and they certainly did in the early Hellenistic period covered in this book…”
These years, 323–281 BCE, were filled with high adventure, intrigue, passion, assassinations, dynastic marriages, treachery, shifting alliances, and mass slaughter on battlefield after battlefield.
And while the men fought on the field, the women schemed from their palaces, pavilions, and prisons; this was the first period of western history when privileged women, especially from the royal families, began to play the kind of major political roles they would continue to play throughout the future history of Roman, Byzantine, and European monarchies.
The conflicts of these generals took place across a huge swath of Alexander’s empire, often with clashes occurring simultaneously on two or even three continents.
The author focuses on individuals; while maintaining a forward thrust, chronologically speaking, most of the chapters hinge on the adventures of one or two of the protagonists.
The author uses snapshot-like frames to organize disparate but interconnected events, each headed by a rubric to remind readers of the place, time, and principal characters involved.
The Macedonian Empire was one of the world’s largest but, without doubt, its most ephemeral. It attained its greatest extent in 325 B.C. with Alexander the Great’s invasion of the Indus valley (today eastern Pakistan), at the end of a ten-year campaign of conquest in Europe, Asia, and North Africa.
But it began to collapse in 323 following Alexander’s sudden and unforeseen death. It existed in a full and relatively stable form for only two years.
The story of Alexander’s conquests is known to many readers, but the dramatic and consequential sequel to that story is much less well-known. It is a tale of loss that begins with the greatest loss of all, the death of the king who gave the empire its center.
“He died just when men most longed for him,” writes Arrian, one of the ancient historians who dealt with this era, implying both that Alexander’s talents were needed to keep the empire together and that the king had become an object of adoration, even worship, in the last years of his life.
The era that followed came to be defined by the absence of one towering individual, just as the previous era had been defined by his presence. It was as though the sun had disappeared from the solar system; planets and moons began spinning crazily in new directions, often crashing into each other with terrifying force.
The brightest celestial bodies in this new, overcast cosmos were Alexander’s apex military officers, who were also in some cases his closest friends.
Modern historians often denote them as “the Successors” (or “Diadochs,” a Greek word meaning almost the same thing).
But that term is old-fashioned for the first seven years after Alexander’s death, when none of these men tried to succeed the king; they vied for his power but not his throne.
This book tells the tale of one of the grand forgotten wars of history.
It took more or less four decades after the bereavement of Alexander the Great for his heirs (the Diadokhoi, the Successors) to finish carving up his vast empire.
“As soon as Alexander died, his empire began to crumble; he, not economic forces, had been holding it together. If Antigonus had not desired to emulate Alexander, if Demetrius the Besieger had not succumbed to megalomania toward the end of his life, if Seleucus had not had the courage to reclaim Babylon with a minimal force . . . a hundred such “ifs” could be written, each demonstrating that the Successors’ personal ambitions and passions could and did determine what happened.
History is not made only by great men, it is true, but nor is it made entirely by profit–loss calculations. More irrational and less predictable factors often play a part (as satirized in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22), and they certainly did in the early Hellenistic period covered in this book…”
These years, 323–281 BCE, were filled with high adventure, intrigue, passion, assassinations, dynastic marriages, treachery, shifting alliances, and mass slaughter on battlefield after battlefield.
And while the men fought on the field, the women schemed from their palaces, pavilions, and prisons; this was the first period of western history when privileged women, especially from the royal families, began to play the kind of major political roles they would continue to play throughout the future history of Roman, Byzantine, and European monarchies.
The conflicts of these generals took place across a huge swath of Alexander’s empire, often with clashes occurring simultaneously on two or even three continents.
The author focuses on individuals; while maintaining a forward thrust, chronologically speaking, most of the chapters hinge on the adventures of one or two of the protagonists.
The author uses snapshot-like frames to organize disparate but interconnected events, each headed by a rubric to remind readers of the place, time, and principal characters involved.
August 29, 2019
This book was dry but at least it was short so it ended before I got too bored with it. The period of history it covers is super interesting. It covers the period after Alexander the Great's death, similar to another book I just read, Ghost on the Throne by James Romm. But whereas Romm covers the 6 years after Alexander's death in great detail in a novelistic historical narrative, this book covers 40 years after Alexander's death in a very dry and boring way. To me it read like a very long Wikipedia article (except without the maps and graphics that most Wikipedia articles have). I liked how Romm gave his characters caricatures or personalities, even if he may have been going out on a historical limb to do so. There are so many names to keep track of that it helped to refer to people as "old man Antipater" or "clever Eumenes" or "One-Eye" (instead of Antigonus). Waterfield doesn't do any of that in this book, and since it covers 40 years there are even more historical figures to keep track of. Since I had read Romm's book before I could keep a handle on things for the first half of the book, but by the second half most of the original people are dead and I started to lose track.
That said, the actual history is fascinating. There are many parables of the ups and downs of fate in the 40 years after Alexander's death. Eumenes is one of the most interesting of course, as he went from Alexander's secretary to leader of a cavalry squad to brilliant general to penned up in a tiny fortress to brilliant general again and finally to betrayal and death. Demetrius the Besieger is the scrappy underdog of the next generation, as he goes from winning nearly all of Alexander's empire back with his father to losing it all, to gaining Macedon and Greece, to losing it all again (although his son managed to hold on to Macedon and rule it for a long time). It was also nice to see how Ptolemy's careful scheming played out in the long term, as he consolidated his rule in Egypt while making occasional probing forays into Syria and the Aegean. Lastly, the history in this book tied up some loose ends that have been dangling around in my mind for a while, such as the background to the Colossus of Rhodes and why the king of Pergamum bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans. Regarding Rhodes, Rhodes was basically Ptolemy's grain-broker for the Aegean, which made it wealthy. Demetrius besieged Rhodes in a famous siege with epic siege engines which Ptolemy helped to thwart (earning Demetrius the epithet 'Besieger' and Ptolemy 'Savior'). The Rhodians celebrated their victory by building the Colossus of Rhodes (with the help of some of the booty they won from Demetrius). Regarding Pergamum - when Seleucus marched against Lysimachus in Asia Minor, Philaeterus, the governor of Pergamum, offered to help Seleucus if he would allow him to rule Pergamum as an independent kingdom if he won. Seleucus agreed and Philaeterus founded the Attalid dynasty at Pergamum, which would often contend with the Seleucids for power in Asia Minor. (The last king bequeathed Pergamum to Rome to avoid bloodshed if Rome were to attempt to conquer it).
There are lots of other interesting tidbits too - it was around this time that a horde of Celts (Gauls) invaded Greece and eventually created the kingdom of Galatia in central Anatolia. In Egypt, Ptolemy drained the Faiyum marsh and settled Greeks and Macedonians there. In Alexandria he set up his ambitious library - among its projects was a translation of the Torah into Greek, which resulted in the Greek Old Testament (also called the Septuagint after the 70 scholars who supposedly worked on it).
That said, the actual history is fascinating. There are many parables of the ups and downs of fate in the 40 years after Alexander's death. Eumenes is one of the most interesting of course, as he went from Alexander's secretary to leader of a cavalry squad to brilliant general to penned up in a tiny fortress to brilliant general again and finally to betrayal and death. Demetrius the Besieger is the scrappy underdog of the next generation, as he goes from winning nearly all of Alexander's empire back with his father to losing it all, to gaining Macedon and Greece, to losing it all again (although his son managed to hold on to Macedon and rule it for a long time). It was also nice to see how Ptolemy's careful scheming played out in the long term, as he consolidated his rule in Egypt while making occasional probing forays into Syria and the Aegean. Lastly, the history in this book tied up some loose ends that have been dangling around in my mind for a while, such as the background to the Colossus of Rhodes and why the king of Pergamum bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans. Regarding Rhodes, Rhodes was basically Ptolemy's grain-broker for the Aegean, which made it wealthy. Demetrius besieged Rhodes in a famous siege with epic siege engines which Ptolemy helped to thwart (earning Demetrius the epithet 'Besieger' and Ptolemy 'Savior'). The Rhodians celebrated their victory by building the Colossus of Rhodes (with the help of some of the booty they won from Demetrius). Regarding Pergamum - when Seleucus marched against Lysimachus in Asia Minor, Philaeterus, the governor of Pergamum, offered to help Seleucus if he would allow him to rule Pergamum as an independent kingdom if he won. Seleucus agreed and Philaeterus founded the Attalid dynasty at Pergamum, which would often contend with the Seleucids for power in Asia Minor. (The last king bequeathed Pergamum to Rome to avoid bloodshed if Rome were to attempt to conquer it).
There are lots of other interesting tidbits too - it was around this time that a horde of Celts (Gauls) invaded Greece and eventually created the kingdom of Galatia in central Anatolia. In Egypt, Ptolemy drained the Faiyum marsh and settled Greeks and Macedonians there. In Alexandria he set up his ambitious library - among its projects was a translation of the Torah into Greek, which resulted in the Greek Old Testament (also called the Septuagint after the 70 scholars who supposedly worked on it).
September 20, 2018
Even those who know little, or nothing, about ancient history or military history know who Alexander the Great was. Few, even those who study military history and ancient history buffs, know who the Diadochi were or what the Wars of the Diadochi were.
Following the death of Alexander in Babylon, his Empire was left leaderless. A series of councils were held between his top generals and his administrators to attempt to secure order and to ensure civil war amongst the enormous Macedonian Empire did not break out.
Such hopes were in vain.
The Diadochi were the Successors, the men who waged war for several decades to determined who would become the sole heir of the lands of the greatest conqueror in history. The three most powerful, Ptolemy (who established an official Macedonian/Hellenistic Dynasty in Egypt that lasted until his descendant, Cleopatra, committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner by Octavian Caesar, who ended the final Diadochi realm and absorbed it into the Roman Empire), Seleucis, who would eventually emerge as the most powerful of the Successors, and Antigonus.
Antigonus is a man who deserves to be far more well known than he is.
An old man, in his 60's, by the time of the beginning of the wars, he had seemingly seen life pass him by. He had heretofore been nothing more than an administrator of Asia Minor. He had never seen military glory, and had Alexander lived, he would have ended his days in obscurity.
Instead he ranks as one of the greatest commanders in antiquity.
Antigonus would lead a series of brilliant campaigns, made all the more amazing by his advanced age and prior lack of experience, that would see him, for a considerable time, conquer the majority of the Macedonian Empire.
His eventual death, in battle at age 80 something (how can you not like this guy?) at Ipsus, ended his imperium and all but established Seleucis as the most powerful of all the Diadochi.
The wars would rage, off and on, until Roman and Persian ascendancy eclipsed the Hellenistic Kingdoms, and they were absorbed into either the Roman or Parthian Empires.
Robin Waterfield has written an excellent primer on the subject. Unfortunately, that is all this could ever hope to be. At a little over 200 pages of main narrative, there simply isn't enough page space possible to do mich of this epic tale justice. Not only are the military campaigns truncated for word count limits, but the detail is not what it would need to draw any truly useful analysis from it. He goes into far more than mere military topics, as well.
Waterfield discusses the growing individualism of Hellenistic culture, the rise of monotheistic cults and the quest for personal salvation(ironically, all of which were the necessary ingredients for the rise of Christianity), and the evolution of Hellenistic artistic and literary culture during the period.
The book touches on some truly fascinating characters. As already mentioned Antigonus and Seleucis, but also Demetrius, Cassandar, Lysimachus, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Perdiccas and even Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated Seleucis in a massive battle for the easternmost satrapies of the Macedonian Empire to form the Mauryan Indian Empire.
This is a very good, well written look at the period of the Diadochi. While too short to be the definitive account, it is perfect for either an introduction to the subject, or for someone who just wants to only ever read one work on the topic.
Highly recommended.
Following the death of Alexander in Babylon, his Empire was left leaderless. A series of councils were held between his top generals and his administrators to attempt to secure order and to ensure civil war amongst the enormous Macedonian Empire did not break out.
Such hopes were in vain.
The Diadochi were the Successors, the men who waged war for several decades to determined who would become the sole heir of the lands of the greatest conqueror in history. The three most powerful, Ptolemy (who established an official Macedonian/Hellenistic Dynasty in Egypt that lasted until his descendant, Cleopatra, committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner by Octavian Caesar, who ended the final Diadochi realm and absorbed it into the Roman Empire), Seleucis, who would eventually emerge as the most powerful of the Successors, and Antigonus.
Antigonus is a man who deserves to be far more well known than he is.
An old man, in his 60's, by the time of the beginning of the wars, he had seemingly seen life pass him by. He had heretofore been nothing more than an administrator of Asia Minor. He had never seen military glory, and had Alexander lived, he would have ended his days in obscurity.
Instead he ranks as one of the greatest commanders in antiquity.
Antigonus would lead a series of brilliant campaigns, made all the more amazing by his advanced age and prior lack of experience, that would see him, for a considerable time, conquer the majority of the Macedonian Empire.
His eventual death, in battle at age 80 something (how can you not like this guy?) at Ipsus, ended his imperium and all but established Seleucis as the most powerful of all the Diadochi.
The wars would rage, off and on, until Roman and Persian ascendancy eclipsed the Hellenistic Kingdoms, and they were absorbed into either the Roman or Parthian Empires.
Robin Waterfield has written an excellent primer on the subject. Unfortunately, that is all this could ever hope to be. At a little over 200 pages of main narrative, there simply isn't enough page space possible to do mich of this epic tale justice. Not only are the military campaigns truncated for word count limits, but the detail is not what it would need to draw any truly useful analysis from it. He goes into far more than mere military topics, as well.
Waterfield discusses the growing individualism of Hellenistic culture, the rise of monotheistic cults and the quest for personal salvation(ironically, all of which were the necessary ingredients for the rise of Christianity), and the evolution of Hellenistic artistic and literary culture during the period.
The book touches on some truly fascinating characters. As already mentioned Antigonus and Seleucis, but also Demetrius, Cassandar, Lysimachus, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Perdiccas and even Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated Seleucis in a massive battle for the easternmost satrapies of the Macedonian Empire to form the Mauryan Indian Empire.
This is a very good, well written look at the period of the Diadochi. While too short to be the definitive account, it is perfect for either an introduction to the subject, or for someone who just wants to only ever read one work on the topic.
Highly recommended.
June 16, 2025
The book is a comprehensive but interesting account of Diadochi following Alexanders sudden death in Babylon in June of 323. In the beginning you are given a glimpse of what is to come with the onslaught of the Lamian Wars that broke out in Greece after the death of the King. A few names come such as Antipater who is governing Greece at the appointment of Alexander to hold down the fort while he campaign’s east. Leonnatus and Craterus who were Alexanders most loyal generals who were sent back to Greece just before his death fighting along side Antipater. Craterus, who may’ve been the likeliest candidate to rule the Macedonian Empire is unceremoniously killed in a scuffle with Eumenes after he is trampled by his own men during a battle in Greece. With the death of Craterus, brings what would be a series of wars to determine who will control future of Alexanders Empire and what the make up of the Eastern Mediterranean will look like before the Romans become the dominant player. As Alexander dies, he hands his ring to Perdiccas. He at this point will be the subsequent ruler of the Empire. He gains notoriety, but another one of Alexanders generals Ptolemy is the first main obstacle for Perdiccas. Ptolemy controls Egypt, but also steals the body from one of Perdiccas caravans that was being sent to Macedon, to be placed in Memphis. Perdiccas attempts to eliminate Ptolemy at a battle around the Sinai, but is crushed.
The first few years following Alexanders death is chaotic, but four major players will dominate a majority of the book following the Conference at Triparadisus: Ptolemy(as I have previously mentioned) will hold Egypt, Antigonus and his son Demetrius jointly ruling in Asia Minor, Cassander in Macedon, and Seleucus in the levant and into Bactria. These generals will be in conflict for nearly 15 years in two different conflicts, which ultimately the vacuumed is filled following Antigonus’ death at Ipsus and the escape of Demetrius.
One of the more interesting aspects mentioned in the book was Seleucus’ encounter with the Mauyrans in India. Alexander had suffered greatly at the mysterious Elephant beasts which trampled his Phalanx’s before at Sogdiana. In what could be one of those interesting television cross-over specials is the war between Seleucus’ phalanx and Chandragupta’s war elephants. The sources sadly on this conflict are scarce but one could only imagine what the men involved in the conflict must’ve thought. The author adds to this thought by comparison with the Somme offensive of 1916 when the British revealed their new tanks on the German defenses. Seleucus ultimately lost the war and had to ceede territory to Chandragupta, but in the long run, with a little help with his new elephants, would become the leading candidate to unite the former Empire.
Overall, the Successors of Alexanders Empire will either be killed during battle or assassinated quietly where another player can take his place. The author gives a evoking account of the period and delivers from what sources survive from this period. I certainly hope there will be more from this period as with most authors it seems they skip this period with what is available with Rome. I learned a lot from this book and found it shocking that as tumultuous this area was after Alexanders death, it will remain so till this day.
The first few years following Alexanders death is chaotic, but four major players will dominate a majority of the book following the Conference at Triparadisus: Ptolemy(as I have previously mentioned) will hold Egypt, Antigonus and his son Demetrius jointly ruling in Asia Minor, Cassander in Macedon, and Seleucus in the levant and into Bactria. These generals will be in conflict for nearly 15 years in two different conflicts, which ultimately the vacuumed is filled following Antigonus’ death at Ipsus and the escape of Demetrius.
One of the more interesting aspects mentioned in the book was Seleucus’ encounter with the Mauyrans in India. Alexander had suffered greatly at the mysterious Elephant beasts which trampled his Phalanx’s before at Sogdiana. In what could be one of those interesting television cross-over specials is the war between Seleucus’ phalanx and Chandragupta’s war elephants. The sources sadly on this conflict are scarce but one could only imagine what the men involved in the conflict must’ve thought. The author adds to this thought by comparison with the Somme offensive of 1916 when the British revealed their new tanks on the German defenses. Seleucus ultimately lost the war and had to ceede territory to Chandragupta, but in the long run, with a little help with his new elephants, would become the leading candidate to unite the former Empire.
Overall, the Successors of Alexanders Empire will either be killed during battle or assassinated quietly where another player can take his place. The author gives a evoking account of the period and delivers from what sources survive from this period. I certainly hope there will be more from this period as with most authors it seems they skip this period with what is available with Rome. I learned a lot from this book and found it shocking that as tumultuous this area was after Alexanders death, it will remain so till this day.
March 10, 2019
Though Robin Waterfield doesn't lay out the connections between the Hellenistic world after Alexander the Great and the 21st century, they are there for the taking.
First, though, as most people know the name "Alexander the Great" and not much more, a quick synopsis: Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, a hundred years or so after the Athens of Socrates and Pericles, and 150 years before the Roman Empire took shape. The Hellenistic era, as its known, isn't paid that much attention to, in part because of limited sources and in part because it's so confusing.
Waterfield does his best to sort through the various Successors (those generals who tried to step forward after Alexander's death) and their attempt to reassert Alexander's influence over a huge swath of territory, but it's a difficult task with no real heroes or villains -- just a lot of men and women with little mercy and lots of ambition.
Note, however, the word "women" in the previous paragraph, because in the much-beloved Classical Greece, women were simply not allowed to have any influence on public affairs. In fact, they were sequestered away from the public eye and usually not even educated. In the Hellenistic world, however, that began to change. Women not only ruled cities and even kingdoms, they were allowed to own property and claim legal rights in their own name. This was a first in this Mediterranean-Middle Eastern world, and it naturally caused much grumbling among those males who longed for simpler days when women were neither seen nor heard.
Another notable aspect of the Hellenistic world was globalization. Archeologists have found classic Greek gymnasiums and temples as far away as Afghanistan, and Alexander's Successors fostered trade and interaction between peoples that never even heard of each other before. India was introduced to the Western world for the first time, and though we mainly know of war elephants, merchants and philosophers also traveled back and forth.
Finally, at least for the purposes of this review, there was the inevitable dislocation when a single power, Alexander, was replaced by numerous small powers. (Or, looking at it from a different angle, the great power had been Persia, which Alexander conquered and essentially erased from the political map for a century or so.) The battle over control was suddenly multipolar, and the resulting confusion and conflict created an uncertainty that took generations to work through.
So if there are lessons to be learned from history -- and there are, despite our modern disdain for any culture that didn't have television -- the Hellenistic era has things to teach us. The increase in the power of women, the economic dislocations of globalism and the shift from one great power to a struggle among several near-equals are all issues that the 21st century must deal with. Sadly, as "Dividing the Spoils" reveals, Alexander's Successors didn't exactly cover themselves with glory during their attempts but maybe, if we're careful and pay attention, we can avoid some of their mistakes.
Or, again sadly, not.
First, though, as most people know the name "Alexander the Great" and not much more, a quick synopsis: Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, a hundred years or so after the Athens of Socrates and Pericles, and 150 years before the Roman Empire took shape. The Hellenistic era, as its known, isn't paid that much attention to, in part because of limited sources and in part because it's so confusing.
Waterfield does his best to sort through the various Successors (those generals who tried to step forward after Alexander's death) and their attempt to reassert Alexander's influence over a huge swath of territory, but it's a difficult task with no real heroes or villains -- just a lot of men and women with little mercy and lots of ambition.
Note, however, the word "women" in the previous paragraph, because in the much-beloved Classical Greece, women were simply not allowed to have any influence on public affairs. In fact, they were sequestered away from the public eye and usually not even educated. In the Hellenistic world, however, that began to change. Women not only ruled cities and even kingdoms, they were allowed to own property and claim legal rights in their own name. This was a first in this Mediterranean-Middle Eastern world, and it naturally caused much grumbling among those males who longed for simpler days when women were neither seen nor heard.
Another notable aspect of the Hellenistic world was globalization. Archeologists have found classic Greek gymnasiums and temples as far away as Afghanistan, and Alexander's Successors fostered trade and interaction between peoples that never even heard of each other before. India was introduced to the Western world for the first time, and though we mainly know of war elephants, merchants and philosophers also traveled back and forth.
Finally, at least for the purposes of this review, there was the inevitable dislocation when a single power, Alexander, was replaced by numerous small powers. (Or, looking at it from a different angle, the great power had been Persia, which Alexander conquered and essentially erased from the political map for a century or so.) The battle over control was suddenly multipolar, and the resulting confusion and conflict created an uncertainty that took generations to work through.
So if there are lessons to be learned from history -- and there are, despite our modern disdain for any culture that didn't have television -- the Hellenistic era has things to teach us. The increase in the power of women, the economic dislocations of globalism and the shift from one great power to a struggle among several near-equals are all issues that the 21st century must deal with. Sadly, as "Dividing the Spoils" reveals, Alexander's Successors didn't exactly cover themselves with glory during their attempts but maybe, if we're careful and pay attention, we can avoid some of their mistakes.
Or, again sadly, not.
February 20, 2021
Forget about Game of Thrones, read this instead! This book tells the little-known history of the civil wars that followed Alexander the Great death: conflict among his Companions, a group of nobles that followed him into his long campaign to conquer the Persian Empire and were part generals, part bodyguard and part state administrators.
This book picks up as Alexander is dying in Babylon, likely from malaria, and goes on to describe all the neat details of twenty years of almost uninterrupted war that followed this event. From backroom deals to carve out his empire, assassinations, ever changing alliances among that Successors, political propaganda, and marriages to turn allies and vassals against each other, this book has it all. Additionally, the author frequently goes on digressions to explain the political, economical, and cultural aspects of the time, adding more details and justifying why each actor behaved as it did, as well as adding more color to the everyday lives of the leaders and subjects of this age. I like Robin Waterfield writing style, having become familiar with his translation work for several Classic Greek and Roman texts. His broad knowledge of the source material also adds greatly to the snippets of clarification he adds to the text.
My criticism of this book is the excessive brevity in some topics. Summarization is important to keep the reader engaged, but often I was left wanting more details. Also, the author doesn’t always point different interpretations of the events from historiography, choosing the version that suits him most and telling it as pure “truth”, which reduces the value of such narrative, in my opinion
This book picks up as Alexander is dying in Babylon, likely from malaria, and goes on to describe all the neat details of twenty years of almost uninterrupted war that followed this event. From backroom deals to carve out his empire, assassinations, ever changing alliances among that Successors, political propaganda, and marriages to turn allies and vassals against each other, this book has it all. Additionally, the author frequently goes on digressions to explain the political, economical, and cultural aspects of the time, adding more details and justifying why each actor behaved as it did, as well as adding more color to the everyday lives of the leaders and subjects of this age. I like Robin Waterfield writing style, having become familiar with his translation work for several Classic Greek and Roman texts. His broad knowledge of the source material also adds greatly to the snippets of clarification he adds to the text.
My criticism of this book is the excessive brevity in some topics. Summarization is important to keep the reader engaged, but often I was left wanting more details. Also, the author doesn’t always point different interpretations of the events from historiography, choosing the version that suits him most and telling it as pure “truth”, which reduces the value of such narrative, in my opinion
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews