Review: Alexander: God, King, Man

In my ever-present obsession with Alexandros III, I had to pick up this recently published biography and relive his life. The biggest difference between this and some other books is how Edmund Richardson tries to ground Alexander in reality, dispel myths, and use more recent archaeological and historical evidence to give us a more realistic impression of Alexander. That being said, for me, Alexander is all about the legend and myth surrounding him. The legends mixed with history are what make his story and history so interesting, and Richardson does acknowledge that along the way, but he also demystifies elements of this.

Perception of Alexander’s legacy

One of the elements that Richardson focuses on is lasting legacy versus Alexander’s lifetime. A great example of that is the city of Alexandria in Egypt. We often associate the accomplishments and history of that city with Alexander the Great; however, the Pharos lighthouse, the famous library, and the overall city were actually established far after his death during the Ptolemaic dynasty, founded by Ptolemy, who was one of Alexander’s closest companions having grown up in his court circle.

Another aspect of legacy was how temporary a campaign of conquest actually was. Alexander conquered city after city, installed governors, but not long after those governors would forget their loyalties and those cities would no longer truly be Alexander’s. During the campaign Alexander left Antipater in charge, who was Alexander’s father’s right hand man and helped initially secure Alexander’s ascension. Olympias did not trust Antipater and lost some influence in court, so there was quite a bit of tension, and it limited Alexander’s ability to truly rule as emperor. Alexander relied on others just as the many kings who went to fight in the Trojan War had with their homes. An example readers will know is Odysseus, who left rule to his wife Penelope, his son Telemachus, and his old friend Mentor. The difference is that Alexander never came home, and his empire split and his legacy was lost to warring factions. He was so focused on conquest that he spent no time at all truly ruling an empire, which is Richardson’s main point.

Crafting the myth

An interesting point came into the craft of myth surrounding Alexander during his campaign. When taking a huge detour through the desert to visit the oracle at Siwa, a path Perseus and Heracles had taken, he is welcomed as son of Amun, syncretized with Zeus. When his companions and soldiers ask him for details, he shrouds the details within enough mystery that it rings true. This claim of divine lineage wasn’t just something Alexander claimed, but rather the Egyptians had a prophecy surrounding him, his father Philipos claimed lineage from Heracles, and his mother Olympias claimed lineage from Achilles. Alexander carried this understanding as reality.

During his campaign, as the army reached Nysa (modern day Jalalabad in Afghanistan), Alexander gathered his soldiers and claimed the city was Dionysus’s city. This was the first time since leaving Greece that they had seen ivy and vines growing. Nonnus would later write the epic Dionysiaca (see my review of it), which tells the story of Dionysus waging a similar campaign from Greece to India, and Alexander lets that legend linger to add more to the mystery. He’s following in the footsteps of a deity. A Head of Dionysos from that region, ancient Gandhara in modern day Pakistan, is sometimes on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Legacy and myth come together

In centuries to come, the myth would turn into the first work of prose fiction in any European language: The Alexander Romance. Alexander wouldn’t be named the Great for at least another century, and his legend would continue to grow and enter the stories and books of many peoples. Different cultures would shape these stories in different ways, incorporating their own stories or legends. You can read more about it in my earlier review of the Greek Alexander Romance.

I gave this a middling rating because in the end this read like a fact book, a dispelling of myth book, and not the point of reading a story about Alexander. We know the myths are just myths, but we don’t want to be told that. I’d much rather read Fire From Heaven and The Persian Boy by Mary Renault again than this. That being said, this was well written, and Richardson does put the facts and everything together. He does seem to move quickly and diverge out of chronology at each stop of the journey to give us a view of the lasting impact Alexander had in each city. So despite my lack of ‘enjoyment’, it’s still a good book and worth reading if you want to learn the history and story of Alexander end to end.