From Alexander To Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World

by Michael Grant

From Alexander to The Hellenistic World

Genres: History, Ancient History, Nonfiction, Greece, Ancient, Middle East, Egypt

319 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1982

About the author

Michael Grant was an English classisist, numismatist, and author of numerous popular books on ancient history. His 1956 translation of Tacitus’s Annals of Imperial Rome remains a standard of the work. He once described himself as "one of the very few freelances in the field of ancient history: a rare phenomenon". As a popularizer, his hallmarks were his prolific output and his unwillingness to oversimplify or talk down to his readership.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Bookwraiths · Rating 3 out of 5]

The era between Alexander the Great's death and the rise of the Roman Empire has always intrigued me. Perhaps it is that no history book I've ever read had much to say about the Hellenistic Empires. Or maybe it is because I envisioned fascinating stories of political intrigue and fierce battles. Either way, I have always wanted to know more about Alexander's successor states. So when I stumbled upon this book, I got very excited, especially since it was written by Michael Grant.

Mr. Grant has always been one of my favorite historical writers; someone who can be informative yet also manage to be very readable, which as we all know can be a difficult task to accomplish with history. And this book was no different than Grant's others in that regard. It gives a broad overview of the major successor states to Alexander's empire, conveying one a general idea of which state was where and how they arose. We are also given a general narrative of the different wars which took place; which state was battling which at any given time; and how the victories by one or the other impacted the Near East and the Mediterranean world as a whole. Grant even spends a far amount of time on cultural information including philosophy, religion, science, and other art form that saw advancement during this time frame. So for a general overview of the time period and what was transpiring, I cannot complain at all. However, there was something missing here.

The element which was missing here - in my opinion - was the storytelling which Grant usually brings to his historical works. The Hellenistic states era was ripe with wars, conspiracies, assassinations, and everything else which makes a great story, but Grant did not write it as such. Instead, he chose to make it a straight forward history book, which I did not feel did all this wonderful material justice. Do not misunderstand me, this is still a very informative and readable treaty on this historical time period, but it is not as good as Grant could have made it.

[Emily Kestrel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book describes the historical and political situation of the Hellenistic era, and although the writing style is very dry, it did provide what I was looking for. The second half, about the art, literature, science etc. of the era, should have been fascinating, but was such a slog that I skimmed a lot of it.

[Lloyd Downey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having read a few biographies of Alexander the great (and masses of short summaries of his career) I found myself asking the question: "Well what happened for the 300 or so years between the time of Alexander and the Romans under, say Julius Caesar?" And this book seemed to hit the right spot...well according to the title anyway. And, certainly, Michael Grant, has a workman-like go at covering the period and the territory. But, as I began to realise, it's a very tough task. At one extreme it just becomes and almost endless list of kings and kingdoms, of conquests and amalgamations which becomes impossible to digest or to retain and which has no encompassing theory or lessons.
Yes, I did become a bit bewildered by the cast of characters and the constantly changing political scene but on the other hand, Grant does try to draw some general lessons and conclusions from the story. For example, he makes the point that the warring generals who succeeded Alexander were basically "Alexander written small. Military commanders who were not in his superlative class but still very good. And those who managed to survive and establish kingdoms showed incredible staying power". Those who established the three great dynastic hellenistic kingdoms...the Ptolemies, Seleucids and Antigonids were those who demonstrated the greatest qualities. Ptolemy, for example was smart enough to stake out a claim for a specific, defensible and rich portion of the territory.
What I've always found rather curious was how Greek culture was able to permeate and displace (to a significant extent) the existing cultures. Alexander himself didn't really pass on a well organised structure nor had he made any provision for his succession. Hence, the succession, inevitably became a shambles with the great generals staking out their claims and fighting each other. However, Alexander had done a few things that helped to "Hellenise" the territory: he established a series of satrapies throughout the whole kingdom where allegiance was directly to Alexander, he practiced near genocide over a huge swath of the conquered territory and the successor-conquerors lived-on in the areas that they had conquered as colonial settlers. So they imported and enforced Greek/Macedonian culture and language on their territories and it had lasting impact (though local culture and customs survived and there was obvious syncretion over the years).
Immediately following the death of Alexander there was an attempt to put his half brother on the throne and then his son Alexander IV (born by Roxane after Alexander's death). And the powerful generals were either put in charge (or staked out their claim) for various sections of the empire. Once this had happened, central control more or less broke down and there was fighting over territory and coalitions.... formed and broken..... for something like 46 years until around 277BC when the three great Hellenistic dynasties had fully established themselves. The Antigonoids in Macedonia, the Selucids in Syria and Babylonia and lands father east, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. (Though there were fringe powers in areas such as Crimea, Sicily and Cappadocia).
In a sense, Alexander's supposed deathbed instruction that he bequeathed his kingdom "to the strongest"....more or less played out.
Though there were some interesting wrinkles. For example, Alexander increasingly assumed the role of a god (much to the chagrin of members of his old guard and Antipater who had been left behind to manage Macedonia and Greece). And his successors adopted the same sort of tactics. (Though not all: I particularly liked the response of one: Antigonatus II Gonatas, who was being praised as "offspring of the sun and a god". He replied "the one who empties my chamber pot each morning has not noticed it").
I also found it interesting that Athens, which had been defeated by Alexander and despite being subjected to Macedonian garrisons for about 100 years entered into friendly relations with Rome which gave it a brief period of revival until about 87 BC when there was a revolt (put down by Sulla). Yet, interestingly, throughout all these political ups and downs, Athens remained a revered University town, frequented by people from all over the Mediterranean ...including people such as Cicero, Atticus, Brutus and Horace. Rhodes also could lay claim to being a principal commercial city-state with interesting socialist policies with public education, naval service and compulsory food contributions to support the poor. As a centre of trade it also became a centre of international finance banking and exchange. They also had a vested interest in political stability and tried to play a neutral role between Egypt, Rome and other significant political players. (Rather reminds me of Switzerland today). Though eventually the Romans brought them under their control.
Grant devotes quite a large proportion of the book to art (especially figurative/portrait sculpture) and to literature but it seems to me that it is essentially focused on the Mediterranean. And from about 200BC the history of the Mediterranean becomes increasingly dominated by Rome.
So, in a sense, the great Hellenising influences from Alexander held overall sway for maybe 200 years but increasingly in the 200 years before Christ Rome was becoming increasingly dominant ; in 197 BC The Roman legions defeated Phillip V's phalanx (which was a turning point in warfare) and in 146 BC the Romans sacked Corinth and annexed Macedonia and Greece.
I was a bit disappointed in the paucity of material on Gandhara and the Indian and far east realms as to me, one of the interesting legacies of Alexander's conquests lies in the Gandharan sculptures and Gandharan heads still found in this part of Pakistan/India.
Apparently, in the post Alexander period there were few great technical advances made by his successors. Mention is made by Grant of developments in siege warfare and perhaps in elements of trade and commerce there were some developments. Certainly, Ptolemy established the museum and great Library at Alexandria in 295 BC ....some 70 years after the death of Alexander.
On the whole, an interesting book but not an easy read and it seems to miss quite a lot (or not cover it). Hence my three stars.

[Reid · Rating 4 out of 5]

Readable, in-depth and broad in scope, this history covers the rise of Rome and the Successor states following the death of Alexander. The second half of the book examines the social changes and the cultural richness of the period: Hellenistic women, changes in art & architecture as well as city design and scholarship. I will definitely read more books by Grant, a well-versed scholar with a penchant for good writing and a lack of verbosity.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another winner from the prolific Classical historian, Michael Grant. This one traces the rise of Alexander's empire through the successor states (primarily Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid kings of Syria) and the final end with Cleopatra's suicide in 30 BC.

[Colin Paterson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Starts promising. Good detail about the Hellenistic world after Alexander. Then about half way through it devolves into a never ending slog about poetry, literature, sculpture and art. It reads like an essay someone was forced to write for some insufferable elitist college course that never results in meaningful employment. First half ok. Second half almost physically painful to read.

[Adam Chandler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A depiction of the Hellenistic world from the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC to Cleopatra in the 1st century BC. Grant spends a good deal of space talking not only about events going on in Greece but the world which Alexander took over, spreading Hellenic influence far and wide for better or for worse.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Michael Grant is the author of a score or two of books on ancient Greece and Rome. They seem to run the gamut from the bad (The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire) to the workmanlike, as in this book, to the excellent such as The Fall of the Roman Empire and Roman History from Coins.

From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World may be a workmanlike book; but if it is so, it is one on a subject that very few have done justice to. (The only exception I know is Will Durant's The Life of Greece.) Perhaps the main features of this period could be summarized thus:

* The politics of the age was characterized by the conquests of Alexander the Great, followed by the creation of kingdoms started after his death by his generals. Some city-states continued to exist, but were usually associated with federations or kingdoms.

* Most of the literature of the era exists in fragments only. While so much exists in good shape from the Periclean Age, the Hellenic era gives us only what has lasted from Menander, Theocritus, Theophrastus, Polybius, and Apollonius of Rhodes.

* Instead of a heroic age, it was an era where the best that could be hoped for was ataraxia, a quietistic endurance of a life which was ruled by Fortune.

Grant seems to know his material well, but spends an inordinate time describing works which have been lost. There could have been more quotes from the writers and philosophers of the era (as Durant provides in his book); and the organization of chapters could have been more organic. For instance, there are two widely separated chapters in which the literature of the area is discussed.

Perhaps most useful are the maps and the illustrations, particularly of coins. Grant is an expert in ancient numismatics. The narrative picks up when he discusses coins.

Is it worth reading this book? Perhaps if you know something about the era, From Alexander to Cleopatra will help fill in on some details. It is not a particularly well-written book, but the subject is one that cries out for study. We know so much about the fifty-odd years of Periclean Athens, and practically nothing about the 300 years that followed.

[Julie Akeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very enriching read. A lot of information there but take the time to soak into the book. I'm in the middle of reading the Iliad and had already read the Odysee. This is a good follow up to the history of Greece and I want more. Love to read more of this author's works. I love history, and love books that are written well on history.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly dense history, but an excellent introduction to the era.