jjares reviewed The Hellenistic World: A Captivating Guide to the Hellenistic Age and Alexander the Great on + 3500 more book reviews
Finally, someone has explained where the "Hellenistic" comes from when referring to Greece's Golden Age. "Hellas" was the original name of Greece. According to this book, the Hellenistic Period began with the death of Alexander in 323 BCE and ended with the Roman defeat of the last Hellenistic kingdom.Â
I enjoyed the book about Alexander more than the Hellenistic Age. I rated the Hellenistic Age at 4.0 stars and Alexander the Great at 5.0 stars. This is an overall score of 4.5 stars.
THE HELLENISTIC AGE --
The opening chapter helped explain why there was so much unrest after Alexander died. He was not there long enough to solidify his rule and the empire was quickly split into three portions. Going from participating in government in the old city-states to being ruled by an authoritative figure with a different bureaucratic system was alienating to many in the newly acquired lands.
Mostly, this book seemed to be a continuing pageant of wars and assassinations. After reading this, Alexander dropped in my estimation. He may have conquered huge swaths of lands and peoples but he didn't do what any ancient ruler learned in "How to Be a King 101." It is critical for a ruler to secure his lands (before looking for more) and have an heir (and a spare). It seems that Alexander had male children that were born near or after his death. However, the heirs and their mothers were killed in order to further the ambitions of the various warring rulers.
The generations of warring could have been avoided if Alexander had set a line of succession. Instead, he figured he would live long enough to straighten things out. In reality, he became a victim of his combat successes; he couldn't stop fighting. I thought it staggering to see the resources expended; the tragedy is that no one seemed to win or lose enough to go to the table and compromise.
The info offered to explain the Macedon Kingdom, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the Seleucid Empire was quite descriptive. The timeline offered at the beginning of the chapters was very helpful to keep people and events straight. An interesting nugget was offered in the Ptolemaic Dynasty; Ptolemy II, by allowing his wife to share in ruling his lands, set the stage for Cleopatra VII to rule on her own.
 Â
This book continues until the fall of each of the Hellenistic Empires and the rise of the Roman Empire. With the generations of plotting and backstabbing, the Macedonian families weakened their positions by losing the support of their citizens. The continuous corruption and greed showed the citizens they needed a new protector -- Rome.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT --
Sometimes the stories of military leaders can devolve to just one battle after another. This author took the time to explain the significance of the battle's outcome or how it changed history. In other words, this author answered the "why" of things. That makes history more interesting and helps the reader see the overall theme or the big picture. The writer also explained terms and wrote in an engaging way.
Another help was that long passages were broken by meaningful subheadings; this helped the reader understand what was important. I really enjoyed the description of the war elephants (I've been curious about them for years) and how the Macedonian troops tried to deal with such a dangerous foe. It was just a few sentences on page 64, but it explained why the elephants were so feared.
I thought exploring Alexander's traits, beliefs, and motivations to be interesting and thought-provoking. Until reading the analysis of Alexander's empire after his death, I didn't understand why it was so unstable. 'This was a great presentation of the life and legacy of Alexander.
I enjoyed the book about Alexander more than the Hellenistic Age. I rated the Hellenistic Age at 4.0 stars and Alexander the Great at 5.0 stars. This is an overall score of 4.5 stars.
THE HELLENISTIC AGE --
The opening chapter helped explain why there was so much unrest after Alexander died. He was not there long enough to solidify his rule and the empire was quickly split into three portions. Going from participating in government in the old city-states to being ruled by an authoritative figure with a different bureaucratic system was alienating to many in the newly acquired lands.
Mostly, this book seemed to be a continuing pageant of wars and assassinations. After reading this, Alexander dropped in my estimation. He may have conquered huge swaths of lands and peoples but he didn't do what any ancient ruler learned in "How to Be a King 101." It is critical for a ruler to secure his lands (before looking for more) and have an heir (and a spare). It seems that Alexander had male children that were born near or after his death. However, the heirs and their mothers were killed in order to further the ambitions of the various warring rulers.
The generations of warring could have been avoided if Alexander had set a line of succession. Instead, he figured he would live long enough to straighten things out. In reality, he became a victim of his combat successes; he couldn't stop fighting. I thought it staggering to see the resources expended; the tragedy is that no one seemed to win or lose enough to go to the table and compromise.
The info offered to explain the Macedon Kingdom, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the Seleucid Empire was quite descriptive. The timeline offered at the beginning of the chapters was very helpful to keep people and events straight. An interesting nugget was offered in the Ptolemaic Dynasty; Ptolemy II, by allowing his wife to share in ruling his lands, set the stage for Cleopatra VII to rule on her own.
 Â
This book continues until the fall of each of the Hellenistic Empires and the rise of the Roman Empire. With the generations of plotting and backstabbing, the Macedonian families weakened their positions by losing the support of their citizens. The continuous corruption and greed showed the citizens they needed a new protector -- Rome.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT --
Sometimes the stories of military leaders can devolve to just one battle after another. This author took the time to explain the significance of the battle's outcome or how it changed history. In other words, this author answered the "why" of things. That makes history more interesting and helps the reader see the overall theme or the big picture. The writer also explained terms and wrote in an engaging way.
Another help was that long passages were broken by meaningful subheadings; this helped the reader understand what was important. I really enjoyed the description of the war elephants (I've been curious about them for years) and how the Macedonian troops tried to deal with such a dangerous foe. It was just a few sentences on page 64, but it explained why the elephants were so feared.
I thought exploring Alexander's traits, beliefs, and motivations to be interesting and thought-provoking. Until reading the analysis of Alexander's empire after his death, I didn't understand why it was so unstable. 'This was a great presentation of the life and legacy of Alexander.
