A. B. Bosworth

This book was especially interesting to me because the author contrasts some of the issues faced by Alexander with similar situations faced by Cortez and the invasion of Mexico and I'm reasonably familiar with the history of Mexico....having lived there and being interested in its history.
I guess, in a sense, Bosworth tends to challenge conventional interpretations of Alexander's exploits. And one of the things I found interesting was the forensic way that Bosworth looks at the narratives that documented Alexander's invasion of the middle east. Arrian, seems to be the most cited author but he relied on other sources. He wasn't on the expedition. Callisthenes WAS on the expedition but he was pretty much Alexander's "spin doctor" .....writing up the events in a way that clearly favoured Alexander. Ptolemy was on the expedition and present at most of the major battles but he had the advantage of writing his history after the death of Alexander and, like most autobiographies, it is slanted to enhance Ptolemy's role in the events. Bosworth cites particular examples where Ptolemy is the hero and Alexander's role is either not mentioned or played down. (And there were other accounts of the same action which reported it differently).
Bosworth also looks at Cotez's accounts of his exploits in Mexico and the account written by Cortez (and his secretary) in Spain is very favourable to Cortez. Some of the other eyewitnesses such as Bartolome de Las Casas were not so favourable in their comments; denouncing Cortez's sacking of Cholula as an act of terror. I've visited the great pyramid of Cholula and even traversed the inner passageways (which were pretty scary) and apparently Cortez managed to upend the local society totally so that the pyramid became a wreck....another hill (and, I think....the crowning touch.....the Spanish built a church on top. Many of Alexander's "exploits" might be viewed in a similar way: acts of terror and unnecessary massacres.
It is interesting that both Cortez and Alexander found it necessary to justify their more atrocious massacres: Alexander typically justifying as rebellion or failure to submit and Cortez claiming, in a somewhat similar vein, that the subjects were not offering submission to the (Spanish) king. As Bosworth points out .......the document that they were referring to was the "Requimiento" and the claims would have been "starkly incomprehensible" to the Mexicans.
Bosworth also mentions the issue of interpreting; From Spanish to Mayan to Nahuatl and vice versa....with Dona Marina. I've had a little experience of using interpreters and it's tricky. I recall giving (what I thought was) a balanced and nuanced speech of thanks to my newly acquired Japanese in-laws and extended family for their acceptance of me into their family etc. etc.....it took at least a minute .......and my wife (who was interpreting) simply translated it as "thank you very much". She later justified this as saying it was not appropriate and they would not have appreciated all the subtleties anyway. But it certainly drove home the point that the interpreter has to make judgements...not just about the words but the cultural context as well. And how would Dona Marina have possibly grasped the subtleties of the Spanish Empire and the links with the Catholic Church....even given her long-term exposure to the conquistadores. There is also the tendency for people being quizzed by powerful rulers to give the answers that they think the rulers are seeking. (We are seeing this with Vladimir Putin right now).Aand Alexander and Cortez were no exceptions. Bosworth suggests that the bilingual interpreters would be well aware of Alexander's obsession of following in the steps of Dionysus (the great civiliser) and would, inevitably transform their responses into terms which would make the most sense to their employer....with Alexander merely following in the steps of his ancestor god.
I was interested in Bosworth's analysis of Alexander's trip through the Gedrosian Desert.He throws considerable doubt on Arrian's version of events (which is an amalgamation of various writers...including Nearchus (who was with the fleet and not in the desert); and Aristobolus who describes the exotic vegetation but doesn't mention hardships). So Bosworth doesn't write off the hardships but suggests that there could be elements of exaggeration. (For example, despite people apparently dying of thirst, many were actually drowned in flash floods, or threw themselves into wells...so there WAS water (at least for some of the journey) and Strabo says that Alexander timed his crossing to take advantage of the summer rainfall). And, according to Bosworth's figures, the crossing of the Gedrosian desert did not reduce the Macedonian infantry numbers. He suggests that Plutach's figures for the start of the crossing were wildly inflated. Anyway, clearly the Gedrosian desert crossing was a significant low point for Alexander's achievements. So why did he do it when there were alternative routes? Bosworth suggests that he did it because no other had been able to do it .....it was "the final proof of his superiority to mortal frailty".
It's an interesting book though it makes me question the techniques of historians. In the case of Alexander there are written records though all of them apparently biased and somewhat suspect. So the historian has to make suppositions about motives and compare different versions of events to try and arrive at "truth". In the current case, Bosworth compares with similar expeditions in Mexico and claims that they illuminate Alexander's record. I guess, to some extent, such as experiences with interpreters that may be correct....and maybe with the need to justify their massacres and acts of terror on civilian populations. But, I must say, I was much more impressed with the approach taken by Donald Engels with his investigation of the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. He examines the water and nutritional requirements of the people and the livestock and compares marching speeds etc. (Though he too seems to have bought holus bolus into the Arrian version of the Gedrosian desert...ignoring the observations of Aristobolus and Nearchus that "there was a profusion of incense bearing plants resembling Myrrh and spikenard").
Well it certainly made me think and has added to my knowledge of Alexander and his conquests. I give it four stars.… (altro)

This book comprises six thematic studies on various aspects of Alexander's successors in the decades following his death.
However, the author does not see the period from a perspective dominated by Alexander, but more as the beginnings of the mighty empires which dominated the Hellenistic Age.
Not so much a period of chaos and disintegration as a period of aggregation and rebalancing.
It's obviously meant for specialists in the field, and it will take the general reader some getting used to. A huge amount of time is spent weighing up and reconciling the sources.

The author covers several aspects which I found compelling: the 'Babylon Settlement' by which the magnates present at Alexander's death bargained the continuance of his empire. The 'Campaign in Iran' details the war between Antigonos and Eumenes in northern Iran, highlighting the legitimacy that military success can bring, the harsh conditions of the territory and the raw power (and fear) of the Silver Shield veterans wielded both on the battlefield and off it.
The last chapter on 'Hellenistic Monarchy' discusses what the various successors needed to retain their legitimacy and prestige. The author has no strong argument here, no formula for what had to be done, and for every common-sense prerequisite, counter examples are found. Heroic actions and reputations are almost universal, and here I think we see Alexander's main influence on his successors: a model to live up to.
Through these the author reflects on academic dialogue on some of his opinions, and does once or twice requalify his previous positions. Such academic maturity is appreciated.
While I don't remember it being stated explicity, I understand Bosworth's belief that Alexander's successors did not destroy his empire, they merely made it stable in a realistic sense.… (altro)