Alexander The Great - Robin Lane Fox - book review

Until comparatively recently, Alexander The Great was a bit of an enigma for me. Yes, from early childhood the name had been familiar to me, but this did not persuade me to conduct any great research into who he really was, and how he acquired his legendary status. Until recently, that is....

Robin Lane Fox's book is less a biography than a quest to strip away some of the layers of myth and distortion which have amassed over the centuries, as a consequence of the limited first-hand evidence, and the unreliability and questionable motives of some of the most prominent sources.

The period immediately before and after Alexander's accession to the throne is one of the more intriguing sections, with a cogent outlining of the political and social landscape which he grew up in, and the legacy bestowed by his father.

The author frankly points out the scarcity of  information concerning Alexander's childhood, and eschewing idle speculation, draws together strands from what is known about the region in that period, to offer theories about how he might have developed. The tutelage by Aristotle is naturally looked at, but Lane Fox is careful not to over-play the influence which the great thinker might have exerted.

The role of superstition, religion and myth cannot be ignored in a book about Alexander The Great, or about ancient/classical times, but this telling does not become weighed down by such considerations. The importance of Homeric legend is clear, although it is mentioned less as the story proceeds.

Because of the often dubious nature of the historical "records", much of this tome is taken up in weighing up the bewildering number of interpretations placed on pivotal episodes in Alexander's life. The author's knowledge and erudition come into play, as does an ability to see the "big picture" and to place contentious events into a wider context. These arguments are put forward clearly and plausibly, when one considers the complexity of the subject matter.

I think there is a tendency to portray Alexander as some kind of "superman", but Lane Fox rationalises things by offering earthly explanations for his qualities and prowess, citing factors such as his inheritance, his upbringing, his environment and his intellectual and military nurturing, as well as his innate strengths and foibles. It could be argued that he built on very solid foundations, and reaped the benefits of other trends which had little to do with him directly. Another strength of this book is that it does not attribute every change or upheaval to the foresight, will or "genius" of Alexander. It acknowledges that there was a rich and formidable cast of characters, many of whom were significant players in the drama which unfolded...

The passages which deal with Alexander's pursuit of diplomacy and geopolitical planning are excellent, and I found them more engaging than any descriptions of battlefield derring-do. Not everything was accomplished via "heroic" deeds. Much was relatively mundane, informed with a deal of pragmatism or common sense. To understand these parts of the story, it is necessary to see through the morass of propaganda issued by apologists and detractors. This is all part of the fun, though.

The book comes into its own for me when it deals with the period after Alexander had achieved his initial objectives, by way of "revenge" against the Persians. He had to adjust his tactics, vision and aims, and even he was occasionally afflicted by indecision. Significantly, Lane Fox does not neglect what was still happening in Macedonia, Greece and the Aegean generally, and its ramifications for the campaign much further east.

One is also struck by the varied and unpredictable nature of the threats which Alexander and his army faced as they ventured further into the unknown.  He had to juggle and marshal his resources adroitly, and also make tough decisions about priorities. He did not always arrive at the correct balance, and the localised failures are not concealed.

The whole picture knits and blends together well. Many accounts concentrate excessively on Alexander's charisma at the expense of a broad and accurate picture of the state of play in his newly conquered domains. This version illustrates the magnitude and intricacy of the achievement, and the effort required to sustain and consolidate it.

In the end, the thing which makes this story real, and Alexander seem "human", is the sense of fallibility which intruded towards the end, even though his ambitions remained momentous. The mutinies, and the Makran desert episode, are looked at in depth.

In taking all this in, it is easy to forget the fact that Alexander was approaching what was thought, in Western eyes at least, to be the "edge of the world". The author points out what had been going on foe centuries beyond these frontiers, and this helps in adding perspective. It also tells us what Alexander and his colleagues missed out on, and helps us to conjecture how history might have worked out differently if the army had not turned back.

Naturally, there is a fairly exhaustive probe into the conspiracy theories which surrounded Alexander's demise. As with so much else concerning the man, we will never know for sure....

The book concludes with a look at Alexander's legacy, largely in terms of his enduring impact, and that of Greek culture, on the lands which were subject to conquest. Their limitations are also accepted. If anything, these final chapters left me wanting more...

This is a fine book, and it left me with a much enriched understanding of Alexander the man, and of a dramatic period in history.