Reddit mentions: The best historical greece biographies

There are far too many to describe one as "the best", but here are some of my favourites.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A combination of history, science and biography and so very well written.

A few of my favourite biographies include the magisterial, and also Pulitzer Prize winning, Peter the Great by Robert Massie. He also wrote the wonderful Dreadnaught on the naval arms race between Britain and Germany just prior to WWI (a lot more interesting than it sounds!). Christopher Hibbert was one of the UK's much loved historians and biographers and amongst his many works his biography Queen Victoria - A Personal History is one of his best. Finally, perhaps my favourite biography of all is Everitt's Cicero - The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician. This man was at the centre of the Fall of the Roman Republic; and indeed fell along with it.

Speaking of which, Rubicon - The Last Years of the Roman Republic is a recent and deserved best-seller on this fascinating period. Holland writes well and gives a great overview of the events, men (and women!) and unavoidable wars that accompanied the fall of the Republic, or the rise of the Empire (depending upon your perspective). :) Holland's Persian Fire on the Greco-Persian Wars (think Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes! Think of the Movie 300, if you must) is equally gripping.

Perhaps my favourite history book, or series, of all is Shelby Foote's magisterial trilogy on the American Civil War The Civil War - A Narrative. Quite simply one of the best books I've ever read.

If, like me, you're interested in teh history of Africa, start at the very beginning with The Wisdom of the Bones by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman (both famous paleoanthropologists). Whilst not the very latest in recent studies (nothing on Homo floresiensis for example), it is still perhaps the best introduction to human evolution available. Certainly the best I've come across. Then check out Africa - Biography of a Continent. Finish with the two masterpieces The Scramble for Africa on how European colonialism planted the seeds of the "dark continents" woes ever since, and The Washing of the Spears, a gripping history of the Anglo-Zulu wars of the 1870's. If you ever saw the movie Rorke's Drift or Zulu!, you will love this book.

Hopkirk's The Great Game - The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I should imagine that's enough to keep you going for the moment. I have plenty more suggestions if you want. :)

This is a monstrous question and opinions will vary depending on who you ask, but I'll take a concise stab at it.

If I had to point to one thing that transcends Alexander's military prowess, it would have to be that the fact that he spread Greek culture and language as far as he did. The wars of the Diadochi and the fragmentation of his brief but spectacular empire do not overshadow the fact that the entire area, from Pella to Multan, was awash with Hellenistic culture. It formed a foundation of common communication, trade, connection between cultures, and familiarity that would persist in the years to come.

A shining example of this is Alexandria (the Egyptian one). Alexandria, alone, was a spectacular testament to what Alexander had enacted upon the land. It became a center for trade, learning, architecture, and science for centuries, and is, in my opinion, emblematic of the change he brought through conquest. Many will argue Alexander was a civilizing force, and while romantic and perhaps overly optimistic, it is easy to make this case. Conversely, one must not forget that with conquest comes destruction - the once-smoldering remnants of Persepolis - the Persian cultural capital - attest to this.

Politically, Alexander transformed nearly all that he touched. Alexander's rise is often cited as the end of Greek military vitality, partially thanks to his father's clever diplomacy and military reforms. With the exception of Sparta, Alexander effectively stomped out Greek resistance (see the story of Thebes as a particularly brutal example), and while it would continue to harry him the further East he went, Greece never returned to a position of regional dominance like it had in the century before. Also, it is worth noting that Alexander's trek into the East was seen (or at least marketed heavily by Alexander himself) as a righteous counterattack against Persian dominance in the century and a half prior. Long had Greece fought Persian kings, and Alexander justified his march eastward by explaining that it was high time for Greece to fight a war of retribution and vengeance - particularly when he (and his mother, Olympias) argued that his own father had been slain by "Persian gold" (the actual details are a bit more shadowy and intrigue-filled than legend would have you believe). This, in itself, had significant political ramifications at the time, and in a sense, united Greece toward a common aim. Let's not forget, however, that Macedonians were considered barbarians by the Greeks themselves, and Athens and its shrewd politicians would forever remain a thorn in Alexander's side.

That said, Alexander shaped the region for centuries to come. In the wake of his empire, new kingdoms arose (the Diadochi) that would have vast and fundamental implications for every region they claimed. Egypt (helmed by the Ptolemaic dynasty, from which Cleopatra would descend), Seleucia, Anatolian successors like the Pontic factions, Bactria, and Persia were all glossed with Hellenism, and while these kingdoms and cultures would eventually diverge, they did so for a great while possessing an Alexandrian flair.

It must also be mentioned that as much as Alexander gifted Hellenism to the world, so too did he prepare his kingdom for a spectacularly bloody civil war with multiple sides in which few emerged better than which they had started. One of Alexander's great failings - and this is key to understanding much of what followed - is that he neglected to name a successor as he lay ill upon his deathbed and didn't father a widely-accepted, legitimate Macedonian heir. This would have horrible, destructive political consequences as the Successors vied with one another for military and political supremacy.

His cultural impact is cross-cultural, as well. I don't think it's too lofty to suggest that there has never been anyone like Alexander - that much is clear and evident in just how far his persona, myth, and legend pervades stories and folk tales throughout the Hellenosphere. Heck, even Shakespeare waxed poetic about Alexander. For centuries he was the ideal, and honorifics would take after his own - "the Great". He was, and some would argue, remains, a shining testament to personal achievement (thought Dante might argue about that), and conquerors, statesmen, and leaders for centuries to come would lament that in their late age, they had not accomplished as much as Alexander had in his thirties. For centuries upon centuries, kings, statesmen, and politicians would claim they possessed Alexandrian trinkets, or that their city was the true burial place of Alexander. The weight his association carried was immense.

I hope this suffices as a brief, topical bullet point list for you. Truly, this is a subject that could an entire lifetime of study. The man was a spectacular, triumphant enigma that has spawned dozens of interpretations, most of them positive and some of them negative, and his legend and adventures have certainly echoed through history like few others, if any.

*****

EDIT: Because I've received some counterpoint with regards to my stance on Alexander's "hellenising", I will write a brief response. I did not mean to suggest that Alexander brought Greek culture with the explicit intent of shifting or creating a new Greek world. /u/mythoplokos wrote a good critique against the perceived "hellenising" mission of benevolence, a weak notion I feel is rooted more in the 18th and 19th century theory that the Western powers could justify their imperialism by envisioning themselves as bringing the gift of civilization to indigenous peoples. Alexander's history can be twisted into this idea, and I believe it is the reason it still persists today in some fashion.

I will, however, stand by the assertion that the spread of Greek culture and language would not have taken place in the manner it did without Alexander. If we do away with the term "hellenising", what then takes its place? We can debate the merits of the word and the theory once behind it, but the essential fact is that Alexander came, and with him "hellenic" culture, Greek language, and all that was associated. Yes, it was perpetuated by the Diadochi kings, but does that fundamentally change the discussion? In my opinion, no. Were it not for Alexander, they would never have been there in the first place.

SOURCES: My apologies for not getting this up sooner, as I had just enough time to get this up before dashing out the front door! These books are well-regarded works and I would recommend them as a good starting place for those wishing to know more.

Alexander the Great - Robin Lane Fox (an excellent, in-depth analysis of various sources and opinions. Fox's analysis of the events leading up to Alexander's ascendancy is first rate, and the entire work is worth reading multiple times.)

Alexander the Great - Paul Cartledge (I would recommend reading this second)

The Generalship of Alexander the Great- JFC Fuller (Fuller presents a shrewd, well-sourced look at Alexander's campaigns and political maneuverings. Worth reading for those whose interest is not sated by the two substantial works above)

Random selection of some of my favorites to help you expand your horizons:

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a great introduction to scientific skepticism.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris is a succinct refutation of Christianity as it's generally practiced in the US employing crystal-clear logic.

Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor by Anthony Everitt is the best biography of one of the most interesting men in history, in my personal opinion.

Travels with Herodotus by Ryszard Kapuscinski is a jaw-dropping book on history, journalism, travel, contemporary events, philosophy.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is a great tome about... everything. Physics, history, biology, art... Plus he's funny as hell. (Check out his In a Sunburned Country for a side-splitting account of his trip to Australia).

The Annotated Mona Lisa by Carol Strickland is a thorough primer on art history. Get it before going to any major museum (Met, Louvre, Tate Modern, Prado, etc).

Not the Impossible Faith by Richard Carrier is a detailed refutation of the whole 'Christianity could not have survived the early years if it weren't for god's providence' argument.

Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman are six of the easier chapters from his '63 Lectures on Physics delivered at CalTech. If you like it and really want to be mind-fucked with science, his QED is a great book on quantum electrodynamics direct from the master.

Lucy's Legacy by Donald Johanson will give you a really great understanding of our family history (homo, australopithecus, ardipithecus, etc). Equally good are Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and Mapping Human History by Steve Olson, though I personally enjoyed Before the Dawn slightly more.

Memory and the Mediterranean by Fernand Braudel gives you context for all the Bible stories by detailing contemporaneous events from the Levant, Italy, Greece, Egypt, etc.

After the Prophet by Lesley Hazleton is an awesome read if you don't know much about Islam and its early history.

Happy reading!

edit: Also, check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast.

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

Sure! You can start with Pliny the Elder himself, then read his nephew, Pliny the Younger and the letters he wrote to people across the Roman Empire. Then The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons is a classic - and much easier to read that it sounds like it would be.

For Ancient Greece, Read Homer's The Illiad and The Odyssey. Then read anything you can get your hands on by Sophocles, Seneca, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Plato, Herodotus and Plutarch, as your interest leads you.

For the story of Alexander's campaigns, read the contemporary histories, The Anabasis and The Indica, written by Arrian.


My favorites are Pliny's Natural History, the letters of Pliny the Younger, Gibbons' Decline and Fall, Homer's The Illiad and The Odyssey, Arrian's Anabasis and Indica, and the medical histories of Hippocrates.

Have fun! It's a fascinating history, spanning centuries and continents. You'll probably want to get a summary history at some point, just to get all of these different time periods and major players in context. There are lots of them, so just look for something you find readable. What i love is being able to read about the time from people that were alive and writing then. Like when Pliny the Younger writes about his uncle, Pliny the Elder's, death while exploring the volcano that destroyed Pompei. It makes it feel like something that happened yesterday.

Alexander II of Macedon, the more famous Alexander's uncle? Wow, he's niche - I think I've only ever come across him through his association with Iphicrates, the Athenian general. I'm not an expert on ancient Macedonia, mind. Out of interest typed him to Google Scholar and JSTOR and absolutely nothing crops up, so he might be fun to research as there doesn't seem to be much work on him.

I can see from Oxford Classical dictionary that ancient sources to Alexander II are Diodorus of Sicily's Bibliotheca Historica 15, 60-77, Plutarch's Life of Pelopidas, and Aeschines' oration On the Embassy. You'll be able to get all of these online on public domain (i.e. really old) translations. I can only make an informed recommendation for a Plutarch translation if you want to invest on a good, up-to-date translation with full notes and introduction, and that's Waterfield's Oxford Classic translation.

For secondary reading, I'd go to Blackwell's and/or Brill's companions on Ancient Macedonia, see what they have on Alexander II, and they should point you to the direction of any secondary reading, if there is some to be found. The companions are ridiculously expensive though so you'll prob need to go to your closest university library to get access to them. Also, I haven't gotten my hands on one myself but Elizabeth Carney's recently published collection of essays on Macedonian court might be worth checking out as well.

Good luck with your project and let us know how you get on, interesting stuff!

Chin Up /u/Bit_By_Bit

• Your meticulous analysis and smart comments were appreciated by most regular readers of this thread. Please keep them up when you feel ready to come back to it.
  
  
• I am confident your peer group that is now mocking you will recognize your wisdom in a matter of months. You can start mocking them for believing in fiat money when we go through another round of major stock (and possibly bond) market crashes by mid-October (and ultimately a USD$ currency crisis within two years)
  
  
• My condolences to your family. I have found Socrates' philosophical defense of the immortality of the soul to be very comforting reading when I have lost loved ones. Free full text here
  
  
• I went back to your last mining analysis and gave it one more upvote to bring it's score up to 0. I'd encourage others to do the same.
  
  
• "Rule #1: Be Excellent to Each Other"
  

I own Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, and it's a shame the only section with missing philosophers, is the Stoic section.

Furthermore in the Zeno piece has definitions of the four cardinal virtues (part 93) and only the wisdom and courage parts survive, the ones for justice and temperance are lost.

For those interested, I'd highly recommend picking up this work, particularly the latest edition put out by Oxford last year. It's entertaining, informative, and absolutely beautiful.

I'm interested in this period too and have seen recommended for the immediate aftermath and wars 'Ghost on the Throne' and 'Dividing the Spoils'. If you're interested in the wider historical aftermath for the period and have the appetite for a 1000 page tome then you might want to look at 'From Alexander to Actium'.

​

Unfortunately for this time period (the 'Hellenistic Period') we don't have a good narrative history from early sources like we do for some other periods. Herodotus, Thucydidesand Xenephon tell us the story of Greece from roughly 500-362, then we have a frustrating gap for the rise of Philip II (Alexander's father and seen by many ancients as more impressive than Alexander), then various accounts such as Arrian's of Alexander's conquests 336-323. But then there's a big 60 year gap after Alexander until Polybius's histories start in 264 (by which time this is the story of how the Successor Kingdoms and Carthage alike are ultimately defeated by Rome).

[Links in para above are to excellent scholarly versions: Landmark editions in particular are fantastic with maps, good footnotes and annexes etc. But as these are all ancient and so out of copyright you can probably get old translations for free on kindle etc.]

You should definitely read about Alexander the Great. He was one of the most amazing characters in any history of the world. The things he accomplished were greater than some mythological tales. He was viewed as a god by many. His teacher was Aristotle. He conquered the known world and beyond at the time. And he died at 33.
This is a good very historical version.
Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520071662/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_O.0vzbKZ5PRVF

Pretty much all of the books about Alexander the Great are based on Arrian, Plutarch, and (had to look it up) Rufus. I found Arrian very readable, and now that there is a Landmark Arrian, you might as well read it. There are maps on almost every page. It's pretty sweet.


http://www.amazon.com/The-Landmark-Arrian-Campaigns-Alexander/dp/1400079675

Read the original, it's not daunting! Xenophon is by far the most readable of all the Greek historians. You'll get a bit bored at first as he documents the progress of the army of Kyros the Younger by days and parasangs, but it gets more exciting after Book 1. Free translation here or check out Rex Warner's Penguin Classics edition. The bit about Nineveh is here (Anabasis 3.4.10-12).

Adrian Goldworthy's The Punic Wars is a great book on all three of them, although I warn you it is a massive book.

http://www.amazon.com/Punic-Wars-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/030435967X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1367623502&sr=8-2&keywords=the+punic+wars

Anthony Everett's Cicero details the life of Cicero but also details the fall of the Republic in more depth than would be required for a biography on Cicero. Wonderful book, I heartily recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Cicero-Times-Romes-Greatest-Politician/dp/037575895X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367623581&sr=1-3&keywords=cicero

There is a book to go with the series.

I can also recommend everything else Michael Wood has done (once you have seen Alexander). He is a great historian and an amazing presenter.

>Admittedly, analytical philosophy is the only type that has any real significance in the world of academia.

This has been a waning truth since 2001.

>The fairly traditional introductory text is "The Republic" by Plato. A massively influential work, and it is easy to read, not difficult to follow, and not bogged down by jargon like most modern philosophy. However, you might find it fairly boring.

Try The Last Days of Socrates.

The Alexiad very understandable source material written by the Princess Anna during her father Alexios I Komnenos reign.

Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe this is a tale that every CK2 player would enjoy reading. Published 2007 both well written and well researched. It's the story of one count of Provence who each rose to be influential queens of England, France, Germany and Sicily. There's also more than a bit on when some of them accompanied their husbands on crusade.

With the victory of the Grancius River, Alexander's Macedonians were in bouyant moods, yet the cities of Asia Minor stood in their way and soon the Great King himself was looking to respond.


Follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/ApocHistory

Sources for the Episode.
By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) By Ian Worthington
A Companion to Ancient Macedonia by Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington
A History of Macedonia by R. Malcolm Errington
Alexander the Great by R. Lane Fox

this is totally not true. Tribes were constantly rebelling against Alexander. Alexander would pacify them, and then move forward, and then they would rebel again. Alexander never had complete control over the lands he conquered.

He also did not exactly embrace cultures - in Anatolia he consistently overthrew the local oligarchy governments to set up democracies that would work in his favor. While this may sound like a nice act, Alexander also over threw democracies in Greece to set up oligarchies - he did whatever was necessary to consolidate his own power.

Third, Alexander the great was never known as the great in his time. The roman's gave Alexander the title the great because they wanted to justify their own imperial conquests. The Romans turned Alexander into a symbol for their own purposes.

Fourth, and the reason why Alexander did embrace Persian culture, was that Alexander was of mixed blood. Alexander's mother, Olympia, was from Epirus, a rival tribe to the Macedonians. Macedonians looked down upon Epirus as being a backward and savage place. Alexander, consequently, was looked down upon for being of mixed blood. In fact, Alexander's father tried to murder Alexander when Alexander was 16 so that his new son, whom his 5th wife had just birthed, and who was of pure Macedonian blood, would take over the throne. After fleeing into exile, two years later Alexander and Olympia plotted together to convince one Phillip's guards to assassinate Philip, and thats how Alexander became king.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662

tl:dr; Alexander wasn't a nice guy, but no one can be a nice guy he is playing the game of thrones.

If you're looking for a textbook, try this. It's pretty informative as an overview of Ancient Greece, from the stone age up to (and including some of the) Roman Empire, and it also covers how we know what we know (the archaeology and anthropology). If you supplement it with this and this, as well as Plutarch, you'll get the entirety of my Ancient Greek History course. I'm sure these books are available in libraries as well, and some of the primary source material is also available online (especially Plutarch).

I always find it hard to judge how well known a book is, but here are some I loved that I hardly ever see get any mention on Reddit:

• The River Why - David James Duncan
  
• The Snow Leopard - Peter Mathiessen
  
• Flowers for Algernon - Daniel Keyes
  
• Travels with Herodotus - Ryszard Kapuscinski
  
• Replay - Ken Grimwood

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

History student here.

I took an early western civ class last semester in which we read and analyzed Plutarch's The Life of Alexander The Great

Plutarch was a Roman who died somewhere in the early 100's AD (iirc) he was a Greek historian who wrote 23 biographies on famous men up to Plutarch's time in history. The series is called Parallel Lives and each biography is written parallel of one Greek and one Roman. IE Alexander and Julius Caesar.

Also, the book should be cheap and the text can be read in one sitting, my book is only 70some pages. Still an interesting read as it is one of a only a handful of extant tertiary sources on Alexander the Great, something my professor just about hammered into my skull.

Hope this helps.

Quick edit: Just thought I would toss you the link to it on amazon, right here.

I've had Davies since high school and he's never failed me as a jumping off point into different periods and civilizations.



Also, Hansen is quite good at describing Hoplite warfare with an uncanny knack for the soldeir's perspective.

Everitt is great for looking at the fall of the Roman republic from Cicero's perspective. He also has a good book on Pompey but I have yet to read it.

These are the first 3 books I pulled off my shelf next to my desk, there are more but Ancient history is pretty broad (and two of my books arguably are classical rather than ancient), I'm not going to make an exhaustive list though, because well, that would be exhausting.

Thanks! I hope you enjoy it.

Unfortunately I don't know ancient Greek, so I had to rely on translations. I tried to use several translations and compare and contrast. My two favorites: The Oxford World Classics and The Landmark Arrian.

So I didn't look for linguistic similarities, but more subject matter similarities and what I knew to be Ptolemy's bias.

Found! https://www.amazon.ca/Letters-Younger-Pliny/dp/0140441271/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517681712&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=pliny+the+younger+Betty+Raddice. Awesome. I will check this out!

Why are you guys acting like I'm the first one to come up with the idea that Alexander the Great wasn't so great? There's been many authors that have taken a skeptical look at the historical dick-riding that Alexander has gotten.

Didn't read many books besides the one from Billows, but I've heard a few people recommend these.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Alexander-Propaganda-Successors/dp/0198153066/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_3

http://www.amazon.com/Alexanders-Successors-323-281-Commanders-Campaigns/dp/184415761X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250078968&sr=8-1

For individual Diadochi:

http://www.amazon.com/Lysimachus-Study-Early-Hellenistic-Kingship/dp/0415070619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250076907&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Seleukos-Nikator-Constructing-Hellenistic-Kingdom/dp/0415047013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250077394&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Ptolemy-Egypt-Walter-M-Ellis/dp/0415100208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250077806&sr=1-1

History of Macedon and Diadochi in general:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Macedonia-336-167-B-C-Macedonia/dp/0198148151/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250077079&sr=1-1

This one is excellent for the immediate aftermath of Alexander's death. The author I feel tackles the insane cast very well.


This is better for the actual wars themselves and getting a good idea of each of the Diadochi. I felt he could jump around a little, but that's just my preference of reading history.


This book is good if you want a shorter read. Its split into two parts, one being about the actual situation and the other being about the battles and tactics used amongst the Diadochi. I found it's biggest problem to be taking people like Plutarch as gospel - the book is too short to really discuss the source material whereas the other two were more willing to do so.

I've recently posted twice on the Anabasis of Xenophon. Great story, based on true events, of a 10k strong Greek mercenary army that enters Persia to help a pretender to the throne, Cyrus, who gets killed in the first battle, Cunaxa, 399 B.C. The army is now behind enemy lines, and Xenophon, student of Plato, from whom he learnt the art of rhetoric, organizes this army, and they march northward, along the Euphrates, to the Black Sea, via Armenia. The novel is about how does this young man organize the return of this massive army, with its soldiers having identity struggles within the army (think Athens vs Sparta), and how this affects their ability to work together in their common struggle to return home.

In terms of translations, you have either W.H.D. Rouse or Rex Warner. Also this is the story that the [Warriors film is based on](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warriors_(film)

Looking through the rest, I don't think I have much else to add that I haven't already said.

I assume you've read this:

The Last Days of Socrates (Penguin Classics)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140449280/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_zVgtDbS30D3K5

And this:

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Basically, Christ was killed because He spoke the Truth. The historical Jesus cannot be a lie if we are to consider Him a hero.

Same goes for the historical resserrection. To the extent that other cultures have similar stories suggests that there is some underlying Truth to them. I think Richard Dawkins is about to have his theory updated because religious belief is not a mind virus, but is rather an adaptation of extended phenotype.

https://youtu.be/hYzU-DoEV6k

https://youtu.be/rm8FksjlJtM

https://youtu.be/bhBHavDPhNM

The Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian

Happened in about 200BC, didn't it?

Book

Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662

Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (General Military)

https://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Desert-Ancient-General-Military/dp/1846031087