Title: Alexander the Great's Legacy: The Decline of Macedonian Europe in the Wake of the Wars of the Successors
Author: Mike Roberts
StoryGraph link: right here
My background: BA Hons in Classical Studies, Archaeology, and Creative Writing. MA in Classical Studies
Expectations, hopes, and plans for review
This part I'm typing while I wait for the book to download, because my internet is being very slow right now. I'd like this to not be limited in covering the life and death of Alexander the Great, but the impact he had for centuries of leaders. In a perfect world, there would also be a focus on social change, and not just military campaigns. I'm expecting this to be highly researched, as I expect for all nonfiction. To clarify here, I mean that I expect every paragraph to have at least one reference; not only is this what I was taught through both of my degrees, but it means that every single point made has evidence backing it up, proving the argument. Reviewing nonfiction is very different from reviewing fiction, because it's not about how much you enjoyed the book, but how feasible it is; while a lot of evidence is up for interpretation, some stuff is just a given. I'm not going to be checking every source referenced in this book - I don't have the time, spoons, or desire to spend the next decade doing that - but if you're going to use this as a source for academia, I'd recommend doing that.
Review
I would definitely have expected more references, there are a few sweeping generalisations and arguments that need evidence. There are also endnotes, rather than footnotes, and I think all of academia is tired of those. There are very strong arguments against imperialism, and the exploitation that it brings; this is wonderful. There is a quick mention of polychromy, a personal love of mine, which is the discovery of the bright colours of painted marble statues, and the restoration of those artworks. It's something I recommend looking up if you're unfamiliar with it.
The writing style is academic... and by this I mean that sometimes the word order is switched around to make it sound fancier than it needs to be, and words are added in unnecessarily. It's fancier than it needs to be, for the sake of being academic in style. I strongly believe in nonfiction being easy to read. I know how elitist Classics is, and academic writing being unnecessarily verbose is tiring. It's 2022, we deserve easier to read academia.
There are also descriptive details. While these are great for narrative, and for telling the story of military campaigns, they don't add to the historical accuracy. Descriptive details - like saying ships had victory wreaths, and that soldiers were "hungry and filthy" - do add to fiction, and makes for more realistic fiction. This however is not fiction. Unless these details can be backed up with evidence, I don't think they should be included.
Talking of military campaigns, I do have to say that my hopes mentioned earlier were crushed. This book is a descriptive narrative of various military campaigns. That is not a criticism, as for some that is going to be useful from a nonfiction book. I'm just fully aware that history is not made of a series of battles, but there's so much more to history than that. I've read so many books that are purely descriptive narrations of military campaigns, and this is yet another one.
There's minimal interpretation, minimal evidence, just stating facts and adding descriptive details for flavour. Again, that might suit some people, but if I did that for any of my essays, I'd be told to use evidence, to prove my arguments, and to interpret the evidence. I'd be asked to criticise scholarship, and there's none of that here. While the facts stated are accurate, to the best of my knowledge, evidence is essential. The bibliography is three pages long; the bibliography for my dissertation, about the length of a quarter of this book, reached seven pages. Most of the scholarship dates from the 1970s, the 1990s, and the 2010s; I would expect to see much more from the 2010s than the 1970s, as scholarship updates. Equally, all of the references are books, showing a distinct lack of articles and journals. I'd also like to know what translations of primary sources were used, as translations can vary greatly. Just saying you're quoting the Iliad isn't enough, when each translation can lead to different interpretations of the same thing. There are also several quotes without references.
Overall, this is one I'd recommend if this is your cup of tea. Nonfiction is much more niche, I tend to find, than fiction. If you love Alexander the Great, you'll enjoy this book. If you're looking for a book to introduce you to Alexander the Great, this would not be what I'd recommend. If you prefer military history over social history, this is definitely up your alley. Personally, I had a good time reading it, but I'd probably not reread or use it as a reference; there are too many things lacking for me.
Enjoyed with: Twinings green tea
Recommend for: military history fans who like Alexander the Great
TL;DR: decent for what it is, but needs more references
E