Once upon a time, my younger brother (aged 12) needed to read a biography for school. My other brother (17) and I (18) took it upon ourselves to drive down to a bookstore and try to find a suitable choice.

A 500-page scholarly dissection of Alexander the Great was our idea of "suitable."

Our mother intervened at that point and found something that our brother had a hope of finishing.

Fox's book is, indeed, scholarly -- sometimes to the point of tedium. Since first-hand accounts of Alexander's exploits are scarce, Fox spends a lot of time backtracking to explain the many alternative possibilities that could have happened. This is all very academically important, but it doesn't help the reader grasp the linear progression of events. On the other hand, Fox does an excellent job of describing the battles and Alexander's tactics therein. His scholarship is hard to knock. At times, he does feel like an apologist for some of Alexander's excesses, but he ultimately presents a balanced view of Alexander-the-human. It's not written vividly enough for a casual recommendation, but it's an obvious read if you're interested in the classical world. ( )

I honestly LOVED reading this book. Alexander the Great has always been a point of interest for me, and this book only made that interest grow. Robin Lane Fox did a fantastic job in writing this book and working through the mountain of information - legend and otherwise - that surrounds Alexander the Great. I didn’t feel like I could really give this 5/5 stars, though, due to the fact that my copy is the 1997 Folio Society edition. Don’t get me wrong: I love older books - the smell, seeing the author work through what information they have, and so forth. However, I feel like I would need to read an updated version to see if I’d give this book a 5/5 stars. ( )

The detail in this was dry and not very engaging. Perhaps if I had a better working knowledge of Alexander, it would have been better, but this didn't leave me wanting to learn more of this man who was such a prodigy. ( )

The detail in this was dry and not very engaging. Perhaps if I had a better working knowledge of Alexander, it would have been better, but this didn't leave me wanting to learn more of this man who was such a prodigy. ( )

My sister bought me this book for Christmas once since she discovered that I liked the Ancient Greek world, though I must admit that this period is a little later than what I generally am interested in. However my sister is an accountant so she is not to know detailed specifics of my interests in the Ancient Greek world and that my interest generally begins to wane after the death of Socrates. This is not an absolute truth though as during this intervening period we see the rise and decline of the Hellenistic society.
Alexander the Great is a very important person in the development of the Western World. He is one of the very few people that have earned the moniker 'the Great' though one should not be too proud of such a moniker. Granted there was Frederick the Great of Prussia, who began the road that led Germany to become a superpower at the turn of the 20th Century, but there is also Herod the Great. I once asked somebody why he was earned the moniker 'The Great' when the most famous thing that he did was slaughter all of the children under the age of 2 in the region of Bethlehem. There were a few reasons, but as far as I am concerned they really do not cover up the fact that this man killed babies.
However, we are looking at Alexander and not Herod. Alexander's claim to fame, as I hope all of you are aware of, is that he pretty much conquered the Middle East in a very short space of time. Okay Hitler did the same with Europe, but the difference was that Hitler had tanks and planes, whereas Alexander was limited to horses and chariots. There was no real advanced technology with Alexander, but what there was was a change in the nature of military forces and the tactics that he used.
One of the differences was that Alexander had developed a standing army. This was rather new in this period. While other powers, such as Persia, could raise a large army, they were not professional soldiers. Many of them were conscripts that were taken from their lands, given weapons, and told to fight. The same concept existed in Greece, and even with the city of Sparta the nature of the army was the same: their army was not a standing army but rather a city of citizens that are trained as warriors from a very young age. However Alexander's revolution (actually, it was his father Phillip's) was to create the professional soldier. In by creating the professional soldier he could be assured not only that his army would be properly trained but he did not have to worry about soldiers deserting come spring time to return home to plant their crops.
Fox is quite a good author, and after reading this book, when I found another book he had written (The Classical World) I immediately bought it and moved it to the top of my reading list. I have tried a number of books that novelise ancient events, and in many cases have not been too thrilled with them. There was one I read about the Persian Wars and another about the Tyrant of Syracuse. A third one I read was about the first Punic War. However while the history was interesting, I could not find myself getting immersed in the story. However Fox writes as an academic, outlining the historical beliefs of the period, and drawing together a story that way. In many ways it is a story outlining the conquests of Alexander and exploring many of the themes behind it and exploring the character of the conqueror.
Alexander had very big ambitions, but his conquests in many ways were little more than a continuation of the Persian Wars that began with the Ionian Revolt (thought it is funny that Anatolia is referred to as Ionia when in reality Ionia is on the other side of Greece near the Adriatic Sea – at least according to the Lonely Planet guide). While there was quite a long interlude between the defeat at Platea and the conquest of Alexander, there was always a tension between the two powers. Greece had stood up to and defeated the Persians, and while the Persians had backed off somewhat, there was always that ongoing influence in Greek affairs. In a way that threat had to be put out of the way for good and thus instead of simply defending the Greek civilisation from Persian incursions, Alexander went out to put an end to the threat for good. However, one could also consider that it was a lust for conquest. Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's father, had united Greece, but was assassinated. Alexander took the throne, consolidated his kingdom, and then went out as a conqueror to conquer. However he went east, not west (but then I have already explained the reason behind that). Sometimes there is speculation as to what would have come about if he went west, but he didn't, so we do not need to worry (and anyway that was never going to happen because Alexander did not have a problem with Rome).
What Alexander's conquests did was to spread the Greek culture across the Middle East, and this also opened up Europe to the exotic realms beyond the desert, such as India. Even today Alexander is held in high regard among the people of Afghanistan. India became a part of the known world and the Greek language became the universal language. In another way Alexander laid the foundations for another conqueror, Rome, to come and take over, which in turn laid the foundations for the spread of Christianity. However, for a long time, the Middle East was purely Greek, had Greek culture, and spoke Greek. In doing so, Greek became the lingua franca of the region, and resulted in the New Testament being written in the language. ( )

Interesting, informative, and intellectual. Absolutely and definitely worth the read! ( )

The book is non-fiction, and is about Alexander the Great. I have always had an interest in history, military, and classical history. I like the book because even though we may have only fragments and vague recollections, we attempt to picture together what we have left of a very faint memory of a distant past. He does this through this book. In his own way, he attempts to find the personality of Alexander, by analyzing his exploits and stories told of him throughout his short life. I have not had much knowledge before reading this book, but now I understand a lot more of this person’s life and have had a glimpse into daily and yearly workings of Greek and Persian civilizations. Shed some light on religious dogma of that era, and some customs practiced through that period.
In addition, I learned a little about their political structure and society. It is a good book, and very rewarding to read, to the interested reader. ( )

多分戦争かキリストの話だと思う。 ( )

Expertly demolished by so authoritative a figure as Ernst Badian, whose review presumably says it all:

http://petrusplancius.livejournal.com/144175.html

t's well worth the read; very well-written and engaging, it functions well as both an introduction to Alexander's life, and a thoughtful read for people who've already studied the era a little. His psychological analysis of Alexander was considered and logical, and for the most part, I would agree with him; the same can be said of his analysis of the political intrigues of the time, especially of the politics of the former Persian Empire. I also greatly enjoyed the fact that he branched out to describe the peoples and culture and economy of these regions as well, since its an area about which I know little.

There is one enormous caveat attached to the book, however. Due to the fact that I am naught but a poor wee student, I had to pick up a bargain bin copy of the book, complete with movie tie-in cover. Perhaps it was because they were rushing to get it out in order to coincide with the movie's release; but haste or not, this was one of the worst formatted books I've ever read. The maps are such bad quality as to be frequently unintelligible; the layout of the footnotes is hard to follow, especially given the size of the type; and the illustrations are few, dated, and in blurry black-and-white. The typesetting itself, though, was what gave me an enormous headache. There are frequent typos - Alexander faces a possible 'munity' by his troops at one point, while a people called the 'Ews' now seem to have been living in Judaea at the time. Whole lines were transposed in the text at one point. It was irritating, and made the whole book seem a bit amateurish at times, which was a shame ( )

I knew something about Alexander the Great before reading this book but it's still full of surprises. Firstly has to be Robin Lane Fox's mass of knowledge (and informed speculation) about such distant events. I never realized the depth of Alexander's Homeric influence or the extent that he adopted the Persian imperial style after his Asian conquests.
He shows Alexander to be an interesting blend of detailed practicality and wild ambition. He believed that he was a Greek God and had an endless reckless drive but could still make detailed preparations, careful tactical decisions and work out successful relations with troops, allies and defeated nations. So successful in fact that by age 32 he was by far the richest man in the world with an empire covering some 2 million square miles.
One difficulty with the Classical world is that it's so different from own. The Homeric ideal of conquest, valour and generally Might = Right doesn't sit too comfortably with modern ideas of democracy and peaceful co-existence. Lane Fox can see the problem but opts firmly for the glory of Alexander in his Homeric ancient world context. ( )

Certainly the best biography of Alexander I've read so far. That said, the term "biography" is not one RLF would apply to the book himself, at least not in the light of his Preface, where he says, "This is not a biography nor does it pretend to certainty in Alexander's name." The end result is nonetheless more interesting, appear more sensible and better thought-out than some of the biographies I've read. I had a feeling of something strange being going on in RLF's The Search for Alexander, I didn't get that feeling here. ( )

The best authoritative version of Alexander's biography. Professionally written and reader-friendly. ( )

I prefer http://www.librarything.com/catalog.php?book=38 , Peter Green's account, but Fox's is more detailed and almost equally compelling. ( )

[2021-11-19]

かっこよかった
GREAT
1009 ( )

Non Fiction, History, Biography, Alexander the Great, Politics and government, According to http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/alexander-the-great-robin-lane-fox/1100734299 "Beautifully written perceptive and fluent, it is a superb example of historical scholarship and psychological insight. ", Robin Lane Fox has been University Reader in Ancient History at Oxford University since 1990 and Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at New College, Oxford, since 1977, He was the main historical advisor to Oliver Stone on his Alexander film, starring: Colin Farrell, Angiolina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Anthony Hopkins, First published, under the title: "Alexander the Great: A Biography", by Allen Lane, in association with Longman, London, 1973, 568 pp., First US edition, under the title: "Alexander the Great", Dial Press. New York, 1974, First Italian edition, under the title: "Alessandro Magno", Einaudi, Torino, 1981, translated by Guido Paduano, 572 pp. ( )