Bob Bennett & Mike Roberts, The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281 BC, Vol. I: Commanders & Campaigns (Haggai Olshanetsky)

Bob Bennett & Mike Roberts

The Wars of Alexander’s Successors 323-281 BC, Vol. I: Commanders & Campaigns

(Pen & Sword, 2019), 236 pp. £12.99

This book is not a new one, but a reprint with a newly designed paperback cover. Originally, it was part of a growing trend that started a decade and a half ago, on Alexander’s successors and their respective Kingdoms, especially the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Seleucid Empire. The fact that this review is conducted twelve years after this book was first published will allow us to examine whether it withstands the test of time. This is especially true now, as in the last few years, there were several excellent books published on the wars of Alexander’s successors.

The book is split into twelve chapters that portray the wars of the heirs of Alexander in a, more or less, chronological manner. Each chapter usually focuses on one or two of the leaders at a certain point in time in a certain area. Therefore, each chapter has some overlap in time with the previous chapter and the one after. The authors have succeeded in writing the chapters in a clear and concise manner that effectively delivers complicated events without boring and confusing the reader. This is especially welcome as these events have numerous names, sites and characters which have the potential for creating confusion. As a result, it is especially welcome to read such a book which delivers the necessary information in such a thorough and cohesive manner. However, although there is an adequate map of Alexander’s Empire at the beginning of the book, it is not detailed enough. There are numerous places mentioned in the book that do not appear on the map, nor does it contain various geographical features which are essential to understanding the history. This book would have benefitted from maps which illustrate just this as well as other, detailed maps of the different administrative districts.

Another slight issue is chapter 10, titled “Ptolemaic Revival.” There are too many gaps in both its logic and its chronology, detaching the chapter and making it out of place and out of context. This chapter would have been better suited as coming after chapter 11, titled “Lysimachus.”

The book ends fittingly in the year 281 AD. Nonetheless, their reasons for choosing to end on this date are problematic. According to the epilogue, their choice stemmed from their assumption that after this date, the remaining Diadochi did not aspire to “world domination” (p.220). This term should not be used in this context. The only one who may have dreamt some kind of world domination was Alexander the Great. Perdiccas, Antigonus, and to an extent Seleucus, aimed to reunite Alexander’s kingdom under one ruler. The authors confuse this aspiration with world domination. It is true that the Antigonid dynasty, which eventually ruled Macedonia, never again tried to reclaim Alexander’s Kingdom after 281 AD, likewise, the Ptolemaic dynasty never tried to reclaim the entire Alexandrian Empire as their own. Yet, unlike what the authors say, the heirs of Seleucus, especially Antiochus III, wished and tried to unite the Alexandrian Empire under one rule and thus oppose and prevent the expansion of the Roman Republic.

As this book is a great account of the historical events of the period, it enables us to conduct a very important historiographic debate. The authors honestly admit that they used the English translation of all the ancient texts, and not the Greek original. As there was no available English translation in the case of Polynaeus’s Stratagems, their old Latin teacher provided them with a translation. This is an excellent example of the need of the Classical academic world to stop thinking that the only way in which good academic work can be done is when a researcher knows the ancient languages. We must understand that some researchers have an excellent grasp of an ancient language but lack the capacity to understand the historical events and so, cannot write a good historical analysis. On the other hand, there are others who are less linguistically talented, but their understanding and knowledge of the said period lead them to contribute new ideas and concepts about the period. The fact that these authors brought in their teacher to translate some texts is an excellent example of how research should be conducted, where multidisciplinary and multipersonal work can yield the utmost research potential and achieve better outputs, both in quantity and in quality. The Classical and historical world’s fixation on only considering research from scholars who have a command of the ancient languages at an academic level does not suit the education system of today. Unfortunately, many academics would have automatically viewed the book in a negative light due to the fact that the authors do not sufficiently know the ancient languages, even though the book is well done and accurate.

Although there are several problems and mistakes in the book, it is not more than expected from a work of such magnitude. The subtitle of the book diminishes its extent and quality and thus is irrelevant, as the reader approaches the book as if it is a less coherent and complete work, as I believe this book can stand on its own. This book describes the political history of the period, not only the leaders and their campaigns. All in all, the book withstood the test of time, especially as no new major sources on the subject have been discovered since its original date of publication. Although there are a few other books on the subject which have been written in the last few years, the book at the centre of this review continues to be relevant and would surely be a good addition to the collection of anyone interested in the period, or in classical antiquity as a whole.

Haggai Olshanetsky
Bar Ilan University

This entry was posted in BookReview. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.