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. ( )

I've greatly enjoyed similar books by other authors about the Roman and the Byzantine ages. And I looked forward to learning more from this book about the Hellenistic age. But the book never captured my attention. The introduction moves much too quickly, creating a veritable whirlwind of people, places, and events. While that may be okay for an introduction, that whirlwind never settles down much throughout the remainder of the book.

To give the author credit, I did get the feeling that he knows his subject matter very well. But I got the impression that no one knows as much about the people during the Hellenistic age as we do about the Romans or Byzantines, presumably making it difficult for any author to paint a very deep picture of anyoen who lived during this age or why they acted as they did.

So while my displeasure with this book may be due to our lack of knowledge about the people portrayed in the book, in the end, I felt it was little more than a running recitation of names and events with little effort to bring those people alive in a way that distinguished one actor in this drama from another or that helped me understood why the events mentioned took place and why they were important. ( )

(History Book Club Edition, 1982)

I have never been disappointed with a book by historian Michael Grant, and this one lived up to all expectations. I knew bits and pieces about the Hellenistic age, but this book did a masterful job of pulling it all together, with separate sections on history, art and culture.

Grant has a masterful hand for making history understandable. This section of Greek history -- between the death of Alexander and the rise of Rome -- is an area filled with an incredible amount of diversity as the Successors took their areas of Alexander's Empire and made them into bastions of Greek culture in foreign lands. One of the most interesting was the short-lived Bactrian lands in northern India, where Greek influence held out, cut off from all the other Greek-held lands, for some time. And, of course, the Ptolemy Empire in Egypt, from start to finish, is always fascinating.

It was a mesmerizing time to study about, filled with experimentation in art and philosophy as the Greeks came into contact with other powerful nations and began to adopt and adapt what they learned. The confluence of so many inputs created a diversity of thought and imagination that blossomed so quickly that it was difficult for anyone to keep up with the changes.

This book is well worth reading for an overview of the Hellenistic Age that doesn't skimp on details and lays out everything so that it's easy to follow the history of each section. I highly recommend reading it for anyone who is interested in the time period. ( )

12/1/22