Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth – A Psychological Portrait of Heroism, Bisexuality, and Cruelty

by Norman F. Cantor

"Alexander's behavior was conditioned along certain lines -- heroism, courage, strength, superstition, bisexuality, intoxication, cruelty. He bestrode Europe and Asia like a supernatural figure."

In this succinct portrait of Alexander the Great, distinguished scholar and historian Norman Cantor illuminates the personal life and military conquests of this most legendary of men. Cantor draws from the major writings of Alexander's contemporaries combined with the most recent psychological and cultural studies to show Alexander as he was -- a great figure in the ancient world whose puzzling personality greatly fueled his military accomplishments.

He describes Alexander's ambiguous relationship with his father, Philip II of Macedon; his oedipal involvement with his mother, the Albanian princess Olympias; and his bisexuality. He traces Alexander's attempts to bridge the East and West, the Greek and Persian worlds, using Achilles, hero of the Trojan War, as his model. Finally, Cantor explores Alexander's view of himself in relation to the pagan gods of Greece and Egypt.

More than a biography, Norman Cantor's Alexander the Great is a psychological rendering of a man of his time.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Audiobook, War, World History, Politics

192 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 1, 2005

About the author

Born in Winnipeg, Canada, Cantor received his B.A. at the University of Manitoba in 1951. He went on to get his master's degree in 1953 from Princeton University and spent a year as a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford. He received his doctorate from Princeton in 1957 under the direction of the eminent medievalist Joseph R. Strayer.

After teaching at Princeton, Cantor moved to Columbia University from 1960 to 1966. He was a Leff professor at Brandeis University until 1970 and then was at SUNY Binghamton until 1976, when he took a position at University of Illinois at Chicago for two years. He then went on to New York University, where he was professor of history, sociology and comparative literature. After a brief stint as Fulbright Professor at the Tel Aviv University History Department (1987–88), he devoted himself to working as a full-time writer.

Although his early work focused on English religious and intellectual history, Cantor's later scholarly interests were far more diverse, and he found more success writing for a popular audience than he did engaging in more narrowly-focused original research. He did publish one monograph study, based on his graduate thesis, Church, kingship, and lay investiture in England, 1089-1135, which appeared in 1958 and remains an important contribution to the topic of church-state relations in medieval England. Throughout his career, however, Cantor preferred to write on the broad contours of Western history, and on the history of academic medieval studies in Europe and North America, in particular the lives and careers of eminent medievalists. His books generally received mixed reviews in academic journals, but were often popular bestsellers, buoyed by Cantor's fluid, often colloquial, writing style and his lively critiques of persons and ideas, both past and present. Cantor was intellectually conservative and expressed deep skepticism about what he saw as methodological fads, particularly Marxism and postmodernism, but also argued for greater inclusion of women and minorities in traditional historical narratives. In both his best-selling Inventing the Middle Ages and his autobiography, Inventing Norman Cantor, he reflected on his strained relationship over the years with other historians and with academia in general.

Upon retirement in 1999, Cantor moved to Miami, Florida, where he continued to work on several books up to the time of his death.

Reviews

[William Winkle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Several reviews have criticized this book for adding nothing new to the field of Alexander scholasticism. To them, I would counter with this: I wanted a brief overview of who Alexander was and what he did. This book was exactly that, plus an excellent summation at the end of Alexander's influence on history. If Cantor has extrapolated or inferred at a few points, I'm fine with that. I didn't come here for exhaustive minutia -- I have other books on Alexander tagged for deeper reading. Rather, Cantor paint's the Greek world and its struggle with Persia in very broad strokes, then places a very human and fallible Alexander within it. He balances the personal and military aspects of Alexander's life quiet effectively. For a short work, Cantor covers a lot of ground with a style that is as intelligent as it is accessible.

[Hyrum · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a short telling of the life and conquests of Alexander the Great, followed by a discussion of his legacy and historiography. In the last chapter when the author is discussing other biographies, he doesn’t seem to consider his book a biography. The book does not shy away from the faults of the conqueror. There is a fair amount of discussion about Alexander’s sexuality. The author gives the subject points for his charisma and his adventurous spirit, but less than is normal for his strategy. I didn’t learn much new from this book, but that said it is a good starter book for anyone interested in learning the basics of Alexander’s life.

[Faith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting overview, but there were problems with the audiobook. It was very annoying that the voice, sound quality and volume fluctuated frequently, possibly when parts were re-recorded. Also, I think such a short book should have stuck with strict chronological order and not repeated Alexander’s death several times. 3.5 stars

[A.L. Sowards]

I've been listening to more audiobooks this year, mostly through my library's digital system. I finished one, and was on hold for two others (in the 1st position--which mean the book might be available in a few hours, or not for three weeks). This one seemed like a good choice to fill the gap. And it's not a bad book. For such a short work (4.5 hours), it spent a lot of time setting up Alexander's society and then covering his impact. Those parts weren't bad, but in a book so short, taking an hour to really get into Alexander didn't leave much space to cover what I was really interested in--his conquests. I did like the emphasis Cantor put on Alexander being a product of his time--incredibly brave in a world that valued courage, and incredibly cruel in a world where life was cheap.

This book is probably a great choice for a lot of readers (or listeners). My preference is for something a little more in depth. Given the length, I should have adjusted my expectations. I have more in-depth works on Alexander sitting in my library (Arrian and Curtius Rufus). Maybe one of these days I'll get around to reading them.

[T.R. Preston · Rating 5 out of 5]

My borderline obsession with Alexander never weakens. I suspect I will continue reading about him for the rest of my life. He remains my favourite historical figure in all of human history.

[Halik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alexander the impulsive, Alexander the ambitious, Alexander the ruthless, Alexander the vicious, Alexander the megalomaniac, the warlord, the daring, the bisexual, the drunkard. And some call him the Great.

But was Alexander truly great or merely bloodthirsty? The whole point fades to nothingness when you consider that in those times bloodthirstiness WAS greatness. Born to Philip II of Macedon, who was a powerbroker and essentially set the base for Aexander's empire and a mother, Princess Olympias of Albania, with a penchant for gruesome bestial rituals in the service of a pagan diety. Aexander was born into power, lust and ambition. The stance of the Macedonian empire at that time was one of expansion and Aexander's was just the brutal intelligence that it needed to explode outwards afer Philips cunning diplomacy set the stage for its launch.

That is not to say however that everything was lovey dovey between father and son.. Alexander had to ultimately design the death of Philip after the latter, going through a midlife crisis, took a new wife and threatened to disown him. But whats a little patricide to a man whose eventual career would end up causing the more than half a million deaths, more than 25000 of them his own soldiers, lives he sacrificed like so many pawns on a chessboard all in the name of his ego? Fed upon homeric legends, modelling itself after his self professed ancestor Achilles, and eventually ascribing him divine status, Alexander's ego dragged him through a life that burned out like a firecracker. Brief and shining, the mere flickering candles of his counterparts paling in comparison.

Alexander was a brilliant general, but a very bad statesman. He knew how to conquer territory but not how to keep it. That is not to say that he didn't try. He married his Macedonian forces to Persian women but they divorced them as soon as Alexander died. He built several cities named Aexandria all over his territories but only one of them survives today. He conquered most of the known world from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas but his generals and attendants carved up his territory no sooner his corpse started to cool. Ptolemy took Egypt and Cassander, a Macedonian politician, murdered Olympias, Alexander's wife Roxane, and his infant son in the course of usurping the power of Greece and Macedonia for his father Antipater.

Alexander died of alcohol poisoning, he was thirty three. Given to mass consumption of wine in the best of times, Alexander binged to his death after Haphaistion, his longtime lover, general and friend passed away. But before his last two years of life disintegrated into ill health, dissipation and madness (it ultimately got to a point where he demanded proskynesis from all his subjects; the Persians were used to this but the Macedonian balked at it, he meted out death as a punishment for the smallest crimes and ignored larger offenses and was increasingly convinced of his godlike invncibility) Alexander did enough to secure a reputation as, to quote Cantor, 'the cynosure of antiquity' a supreme hero. It was true that he was fortunate in the weakness and incompetence of the Person emperor Darius 3, he also encountered stiff resistance from the princes of Punjab, and was not invincible. But I quote:

'What gained Alexander his posthumous reputation was the kind of man he was, irrespective of military strategy and tactics. He was like those athletes at the quadrennial Olympic Games who stripped naked covered themselves with olive oil. He, too, stood before the world naked and fierce, a beautiful man among other beautiful men, but with incomparable capacity for leadership and for showing the world his strength, intelligence and guile.'

Hannibal called him the greatest general the world had seen, 'because with a small force he had defeated armies of immense proportions and penetrated to the ends of the earth, which human beings had never expected to visit '.

So was Alexander truly great? That obviously depends on your perspective and what qualities you think a truly great person should have. The most objective thing I can say about Alexander the Great was that he was iconic, and that his story gives me a lot to think about.

And what better book to read about him than this? At 120 pages, it is short and concise, but still packs an absorbing narrative and plenty of detail and references. Its perfect for a person who just wants a quick overview of all the facts and myths minus the dramatics, imagined romanticism and acute information overload that authors feel inclined to add in order to fatten up their volumes. A sad feature of plenty of non fiction out there today. Norman Cantor gives exactly what a novice to the classical world is looking for.. A short, concise introduction to the life and times of one of its most iconic figures. With plenty of pointers to where you can find more details and go to for further study.

Where extensive literature is absent, history is mostly a guessing game. Most of the lore concerning Alexander comes from Plutarch and Arrian, a Roman scholar who wrote some 500 years after his death. His text however, was based on books written closer to the time of this self proclaimed King of Kings, including one by the ill fated Callisthenes, nephew of Aristotle and personal biographer of Alexander, who was executed by the king under dubious charges of treason, his writing coming to an abrupt end (this understandably strained Aexander's relationship with Aristotle, his former teacher).

Only fragments of these original texts remain today and its possible that our notions of Alexander have been colored by incidents and notions of a later time than the classical Greeks'. Just one of the things to keep in mind as we read along, accompanied by Cantor's own brilliant and helpful insights into the nature of Historical study.

[Abdulla · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked up this book expecting it to be an interesting and light introduction to Alexander the Great. A few pages in, I encountered too many obvious errors to continue. On page 3, Cantor summarizes the period of classical Greece, describing how the Greek city-states were in a state of perpetual war. He then points out some exceptions to this general rule, saying that,

"One was the period in the later fifth century BC when Athens and Sparta united during the Peloponnesian War against the menace of the Persian Empire coming over from Asia Minor."

As is commonly known, the Peloponnesian War was fought between Athens and Sparta, not against the Persian Empire. In the very next sentence, Cantor goes on to say,

"The alliance of Athens and Sparta defeated the Persians in the famous Battle of Marathon in 490 BC."

This is incorrect. Sparta did not fight in the Battle of Marathon. The Athenians asked Sparta to come to their aid, but the Spartans were observing a religious festival, and set out several days too late, arriving after the battle had already been won. Next sentence:

"After the war had dragged on for almost ten years, the Greeks forced the battle by advancing full force toward the Persian army and surrounding it."

This is clearly a description the Battle of Marathon, but the battle was not fought after the war had dragged on for ten years. Rather, the battle was fought, the Persian army defeated, and then ten years later a new Persian army came back and was once again defeated.
This paragraph goes on to describe the Battle of Marathon, concluding by saying that,

"Phidippides ran the distance of twenty-six mile in three hours (this was the birth of the marathon), delivered the message to the waiting city, then promptly died from overexertion."

Here he is perpetuating an incorrect myth that developed in later Roman times. Phidippides actually ran from Athens to Sparta, and back, to request military assistance against the Persians, and there is no evidence that he died afterwards.

With all of these errors in one paragraph, the accuracy of the rest of this text is called into question. I understand that this is a text on Alexander the Great, not on Classical Greece, but these errors still show a disturbing lack of basic research, which is undeserving of more than a one-star rating.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a weird historical biography. Goes off the rails often, to the point that I'm never sure what organizing theme is being used - at its worst it feels almost like a stream-of-consciousness book written by a trivia nerd. (That's not praise.) People with even a passing knowledge of Alexander aren't going to get much out of this book - there's very little that's new here.

[Irene · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview of Alexander life and its cultural and political setting.
It was brief and to the point, there was little new information but it was great for building a frame of reference.

[Caleb Karr · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introductory overview to Alexander the Great. Covers his entire life, conquests, death and his legacy in under 200 pages. Because of the shortness of the book you never get to dive too deep, but it definitely works as an introductory work & a great jumping off point to dive into more sections that interest you.

[Isaac · Rating 1 out of 5]

i figured this would have been a quick read but it turned out even quicker after I had to put it down due to the numerous errors, generalizations, and inaccuracies within the first few chapters. you can only dumb something down so much before its just incorrect.

[Justin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Embarrassing. A journey to the editor's desk was in order. Banal, trifling, lazy.

Don't bother.

[Lynnie · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first chapter, which attempts to familiarize the unacquainted audience with “Greek culture” does an incredibly poor job. He makes notably controversial and simplistic claims about native Greek religion, suggesting that the Greeks experienced no relationship to their gods but that of fear, and of Greek tragedy, he says that the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides together “attempted to teach the Greeks how terrible was the punishment for disobeying the gods.” (A capital crime committed against the nuance and breadth of the individual corpuses of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.) He states that in Macedon, polygamy was “widespread,” when it is recorded that Philip, key instigator of the practice, was often mocked for his ‘campaign brides.’

In the second chapter, he refers to Olympias (Alexander’s mother) as Albanian. She was not; she was an Epirote of the Molossian tribe. Narratives which ascribe to her an Albanian identity are biased and a result of the contested nature of the modern region—and have no bearing on the historical fact of her Epirote identity. It’s strange to see them appear here in Cantor’s work. Or take for instance when he says that Alexander “was so sexually attracted to his mother that he fled from her presence.” In fact, the most significant relationships of Alexander’s life were homosexual, and he was noted for his almost entire disinterest in women in his youth.

There are funny moments, such as a moment of arbitrary armchair psychology when Cantor says that by the end of his life, Alexander was manic, paranoid, and clinically insane. Then there are heartbreakingly bad analyses—one of the most egregious is the second to last passage. It reads:

“Because the Greeks had talented poets and artists, they were able to create from their bellicose and unpitying society an imaginative culture that impressed itself upon many later generations. The Romans were much like the Greeks, but the Romans established a peaceful empire built on the concept of law and order. They built aqueducts to bring water into their cities and built roads to carry their civilization to the ends of their empire. The Greeks had only heroes, who with a sense of honor laid waste to their cities and engaged in peppering conflict unto death.“ Pathetically incorrect, in describing Greek culture as so homogeneously unpitying, the Romans as a peaceful empire, etc.

In its most generous review, this is a collection of lengthy pages from (mostly) better authors. In its least generous review, it is insufficient as even a primer and thus, a waste of time.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction to the not so great Alexander, who you learn throughout the book might not be such a great guy to be friends with. As I was reading this I wondered how much of this ancient history did George RR Martin draw on to create the Game of Thrones world. This is a very good overview of Alexander's march to India and a good bibliography is supplied for further reading if you want to go deeper into Alexander's world.

[Peter Vik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good, clear and concise presentation of Alexander the Great in his historical context. Cantor does not romanticize, nor is his tone critical. He explains that people with a worldview shaped by principles of Christianity have a hard time understanding the world of Ancient Greece, which taints their perspective on Alexander in one way or another. He finishes with a good discussion on what sense in which Alexander was great.

[Sri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well thought out and not all over the place, this book offers readers a brief yet insightful account of Alexander's life. In doing so, it is balanced and doesn't glace over his flaws. It presents Alexander as a human entity and doesn't glorify him too much. A lucid, yet very effective way to learn history.

[Kate Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd long been interested to know a little more about Alexander's life and exploits -- something longer than an article, but not a detailed 400-page book either. This one, at 170 pages, was just right. It was fascinating to read that whole story--how it was even possible!--and take a look at Alexander's talents and weaknesses. It's like the expression "larger than life" was invented just for him.
I especially appreciated that the author describes the pagan worldview of Alexander's time and how it was substantially different from later Christian values that became widespread after Constantine. The author also follows Alexander's influence on subsequent history, from Roman times down through the centuries.

[Alexander Olsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Det här är den första biografin om: Alexander den store, som jag har läst och jag blev inte besviken. Författaren förklarar skickligt historien om Alexander på ett gripande sätt som får en att vilja fortsätta lyssna. På ca 4 timmar förklarar författaren hur Alexander blev Alexander den store samt hans alkoholistiska fall ner i avgrunden.

Jag skulle starkt rekommendera boken för vem som helst som vill ha en uppfattning om vem Alexander den store var samt tiden han levde i.

4/5.

[David Eves · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok Alexander conquered the world by his 30s but has he beaten Elden Ring twice

[Daniel Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and concise; it gave me all I wanted to know.

[Amak · Rating 3 out of 5]

3/5 stars

"There is nothing impossible to him who will try."

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 2005, the late Canadian American Medievalist Norman F. Cantor, with the Writer Dee Reneri wrote the book Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of World. Cantor died before he could finish the biography of Alexander the Great (Saxon 2004). The book is only 174 pages. I read the book on my Kindle. The fact that Cantor was a Medievalist explains some of the focus of the last chapter entitled “How “Great” Was Alexander”” (Cantor & Reneri 147), which spends a little time on disproving Medieval European literature which portrays Alexander the Great as some of pre-Christian Knight (Cantor & Reneri 170-171). The book has a bibliography. Cantor and Reneri see Alexander the Great as a skilled but brutal military leader of the Ancient World, nothing more or less (Cantor & Reneri 172). Cantor and Reneri agree with novelist L.P. Hartley that “antiquity was another country” (Cantor and Reneri 171). I found the first chapter entitled “The Greek World” (Cantor & Reneri 1) which also includes an introduction to Ancient Persia (Cantor & Reneri 20-27). This chapter also includes the Jewish experience during the times of the Hellenistic World (Cantor & Reneri 27-30). Cantor and Reneri’s biography of Alexander the Great is a good introduction to the life of Alexander the Great.
Work Cited:
Saxon, Wolfgang. 2004. “Norman F. Cantor, 74, a Noted Medievalist, Is Dead.” New York Times. September 21. Norman F. Cantor, 74, a Noted Medievalist, Is Dead - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[Narsku]

There were several glaring factual errors in the introduction (and I mean stuff that's taught on whatever grade you first have world history), which I found astonishing since the author is a historian. Turns out this was published posthumously and a second author - of whom I could find nothing - is also credited. It seems likely that there was a manuscript and it was rushed through publication with some parts, including the introduction, slapped onto it with very little care. I don't quite see the point in doing this, since there is no shortage of writing on the topic - from contemporary fragments to extensive modern biographies and in-depth research. This is a short introduction to Alexander but the uneven quality within the book is a great disadvantage.

[James Piper · Rating 3 out of 5]

A textbook or scholarly writing on Alexander the Great. A bio and an attempt to answer the question: was he great? It would have helped if the author defined what it means to be great and hence create a measuring stick. He doesn't do that. He simply summarizes why he may or may not be considered great. Again, whatever that may be.

I didn't find anything new in this text.

What I found most interesting was the impact of christianity on modern western society and how that frames our views on the Greeks of that era.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a nice corrective to the Renault novels overly romanticized view of Alexander. Which I love, don't get me wrong, but as fiction. Cantor's slim book makes a number of interesting points. Greek culture, and by extension Alexander, was violent, superstitious, cruel and misogynistic. He was Alexander the "Great" precisely because he led his army to victory, not because of nascent world federalism tendencies. The writing is brisk, and occasionally brutal, but Cantor makes a strong case for his read on Alexander.

[Mak · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would not recommend this to those with more than just passing knowledge of Alexander, his father, and the general time period. The inaccuracies in some basic facts that the ancient sources and the general scholarship on the subject agree on turned me off. Cantor is clearly not a subject matter expert and I wonder if he only wrote the book because Alexander is so popular. In addition, I prefer a more even handed treatment of historical subjects; I don't like the overly positive or overly negative interpretations.

[Holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This would have been a lot better if 50 some pages were not taken up by information that had nothing to do with anything.

I have always been interested in Alexander and his family. I felt while this book was very informative, could have been written better and in an actual time line style. Instead the author skipped all over the place and i had to re-live Alexanders death in 4 different chapters.

[regina ferarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

I see the reviews criticizing this book for broadly summarizing and adding little new to the discussion, but these reviewers already seem familiar with Alexander. As somebody who is brand new to this topic- Cantor provided the ideal pick from the library shelf. I find myself hungry for more knowledge of Alexander and this era of history!

[Doug · Rating 2 out of 5]

History light, a chatty colloquial telling of Alexander’s story, though the book’s organization made the narrative harder to follow than it should have been. Also, it badly needed editing. Finally, audiobook reader was the **worst reader ever**. Leave this one for the dust bin.

[Komal · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars