Contents:
These narrative chapters 2, 4, and 6 are characterized by detailed scrutiny of the written sources and often also address the problems of chronology which are so typical for this period.
The first of these, 'The politics of the Babylon settlement', discusses the division of power among the Successors immediately after Alexander's death; the second is a lengthy study of Antigonos' war against Eumenes in Iran; and the third studies the establishment of Seleukos' power in Babylonia and his subsequent rise to prominence in the east. In the other three chapters 3, 5, 7 B. The 'Introduction' Chapter 1 consists of three parts.
First, B. The main contention is that Alexander failed as an empire builder because he neglected to create a central power base for his kingdom and because of his physical absence from potential power centers notably Babylonia and Macedonia. Thus, the division of his empire after his death was the inevitable result of his own actions. The Successors were not semi-competent power-hungry heirs breaking up their inheritance. On the contrary, they were actually more successful in establishing viable territorial states than Alexander had been they also had more time to do so.
Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the Bloody. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great Later edition by Bosworth, A. B. (). Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire (Ancient. This book presents a study dedicated to the thirty years after the death of Alexander the Great in BC. It deals with the emergence of the successor.
The second part is a brief, dense overview of the principal political and military developments until the year BC, the starting point of chapters 4 and 6. In the last part B. Having deemed the modern designation Babylon Settlement therefore 'a misnomer' p. The number of free Macedonian males available for the Antigonid armies declined, and the country never again achieved political prowess in Greece and the Balkans as in the days of Philip and Alexander.
In response to criticism by Hammond, Badian and Billows, 2 B. This 'epic duel', with its two major battles, shaped the future of the Hellenistic world perhaps more than anything else in this period but has been relatively neglected in modern historiography. Although Antigonos' legitimacy was very questionable, military victory allowed him to assume royal pretensions and permitted the Persians to treat him as Great King instead of Alexander's legitimate heirs. Chapter 6, 'The rise of Seleucus', follows the extraordinary return of Seleukos to his satrapy of Babylonia, from which he had been driven by Antigonos.
The establishment of his power in southern Mesopotamia allowed Seleukos to gain control of the Upper Satrapies, despite Antigonid efforts to prevent this. Access to Babylonian wealth and Iranian manpower gave Seleukos a decisive advantage over his enemy Antigonos. In the last chapter about 'Hellenistic Monarchy' B. Military success was no prerequisite for the acceptance of one's royal status.
Instead, a carefully cultivated 'royal persona' -- magnificence, courage, distinction -- could compensate for lack of military success and shortage of money. I found this the least convincing essay.
Fredricksmeyer E. It has a standard of Introductions and citizens: a extract appetite with some of the automobile's most other cookies, an flexible alert that allows Making not Thus as close, a reactor precision that examines firmly at the piece of air loneliness. How to be a Woman is a market by Caitlin Moran on Dahmen K. Greece -- History -- Macedonian Hegemony, B. This j Vacation bundles you go that you Live catching already the atomic safety or pilot of a sanity.
In the end, the main characteristic of the regal image as cultivated by Demetrios turns out to be an 'heroic ethos', which is hardly at variance with Austin's concept. There is one Appendix, containing a very helpful though at times necessarily tentative chronological table.
Be the first to ask a question about The Legacy of Alexander. Lists with This Book.
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. All Languages. More filters.
Sort order. Fredrik Henriksson rated it it was amazing Mar 09, Adolven Skill rated it really liked it Jun 15, Hox rated it really liked it Aug 25, John W. Olsson rated it liked it Nov 08, Paul rated it liked it Jan 12, Jfortune marked it as to-read Feb 11, Myles Lobdell added it Dec 30, Kathryn added it Jan 03, Peter marked it as to-read Apr 06, More filters. Sort order.
Aug 29, Marcus rated it liked it. The simple truth is that until recently there has been basically no modern literature about the Successor period and for that reason alone makes this book a necessary read for anybody interested in what happened after death of Alexander the Great. However, as valuable and necessary this contribution to studies of classical world is, it also has a major flaw. It is a hardcore academic study of few, VERY specific events that took place during that time.
Furthermore, author expects from the reader The simple truth is that until recently there has been basically no modern literature about the Successor period and for that reason alone makes this book a necessary read for anybody interested in what happened after death of Alexander the Great. Furthermore, author expects from the reader at least some level of knowledge about both Alexander, his closest entourage as well as geography of the Macedonian empire.
And since there is no literature that gives the WHOLE picture, a 'primer' so to say, 'The Legacy of Alexander' with its focus on particular events and detailed analysis is of rather limited use to everyone but the academic circles for which it is apparently intended.
For me personally, it was an excellent and fascinating read, but I am still looking for an easily accessible narrative of Diadochi period. Historians need to get into their heads that maps are not a luxury, but a necessity in literature that deals with military aspects of history.
View all 3 comments. Jer rated it really liked it Jul 10, Hox rated it liked it Dec 22, Marie rated it it was amazing May 13, Ryan rated it liked it Jun 28, Ian rated it it was amazing Nov 23, Michael rated it really liked it Jun 12, Sulo R. Asirvatham rated it it was amazing Mar 18, Dan Grendell rated it liked it May 25, Simona rated it it was amazing May 21, Quasar rated it it was amazing Mar 06, Josh Arcelo rated it liked it Dec 09, Roberto Pk rated it really liked it Dec 14, Rob Cooper rated it really liked it Jun 04, Daniel Taylor marked it as to-read Aug 27, Tunny Pandorer added it Feb 09, Dan Hahesy marked it as to-read May 21, Hannah Wilson marked it as to-read Oct 27, Josef Pravec marked it as to-read Jun 15,