Alexander, The Ambiguity of Greatness

I recently finished Alexander, the Ambiguity of Greatness by Guy MacLean Rogers. While the book didn't break any ground in the study of Alexander the III of Macedon, I still highly recommend it.

The book is a straight forward biography, starting with background info on Macedonia and Philip the II. From then on the book follows the chronological path of Alexander from childhood to his enormous conquest of Asia and premature death. Mind you, this is not a book for scholars of Alexander. It is, however, very user friendly and a vast knowledge of Alexander or the world of antiquity is not required to understand and enjoy the book. That's not to say the Alexander, the Ambiguity of Greatness glosses over facts and is elementary. In my opinion, this book is balanced enough to please people with a varied background on Alexander.

Before reading this book, I had a general knowledge on Alexander, his history, his conquests and the aftermath of his death. What I got out of this book was a greater knowledge of his (alleged) motives and a better overall understanding of the inner workings of his conquest. The ambiguity of greatness comes in the form of his legacy. Alexander is both loved and hated by historians for various reasons. Some see him as a cruel despot who ruthlessly conquered Persia and beyond, slaying men, women, children and friends who stood in his way. Others see him as a latter day multi-culturist who sought to incorporate the various people he conquered into his new government and adopted some of there ways and traditions himself. The true Alexander probably lies somewhere in between.

I feel that scholars, from whatever age, try and judge history using their own mores, which can be a flawed philosophy. The end of the book points out that we may revile someone like Alexander for the "war crimes" he committed, but we call a Truman, who ordered the deaths of thousands with the stroke of a pen, a patriot. I can see the where the potential disagreement on that point can come into play, but I think it raises an interesting question. The point is perspective. Truman died in 1972; his life and times are far more documented that Alexander's. There are plenty of people alive today that remember Truman. We can easily dissect every aspect of his decision to use atomic weapons. Alexander died 2,331 year ago. We don't have the luxury of mass media or eye witness accounts to tell of Alexander's motives. Perhaps the killing of Greek mercenaries or the wholesale murder of the entire population of Massaga seemed justified over 2,000 years ago, no matter how offensive it seems to us. Unfortunately for Alexander, he is judged by people now living in a different world, separated by over 2,000 years. I am not prepared to call Alexander a hero or a villain, and there in lies the ambiguity of his greatness.

Et tu.....Caesar?

Divers find Caesar bust that may date from 46B.C. They found what now? OK, let my state that I am not an expert on archaeology, or anything for that matter. But that bust kind of maybe looks like Gaius Julius Caesar......kind of. Ever since the Renaissance brought renewed interest in Ancient Rome, people have been tacking names on portrait busts without any historical evidence to back up the claim. Some guy digs up a bust of an old man and says "Hey, that must be Marius." Now, I'm not saying that is what happened recently in France, but they really don't give you any evidence in the article, do they. Now, I know I should only expect so much from a Yahoo! news article, but I'm left with my doubts. Just because you pull a male portrait bust out of the Rhone near Arles, you can't assume that it's Caesar. Nor can you assume that it's from 46 B.C. I know you can tell by the technique the general period from which a statute is from, but through around words like "undoubtedly," especially in the archaeological field, is asking for trouble. If there is "doubtless" proof on the origins of the statue, show me, because I would love to see it. Until then, I'm going to consider this bust a "possible" representation of Caesar. Here are some other busts of Caesar, both real and supposed.

http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Caesar/graphics/Caesar_Home.gif.gif
http://www.mimenta.com/Images/Extra%20Graphics/VA07/Julius%20Caesar.jpg
http://julius-caesar2.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/caesar10.jpg

Is the Rhone bust Caesar? What do you think?

Emperor Nero's gate discovered in Cologne

http://www.expatica.com/de/articles/news/Emperor-Nero_s-gate-discovered-in-Cologne--.html

Yet again, another wonderful discovery of a Roman site. Many modern cities in Europe have been continuously inhabited since Roman times, so most traces of their ancient past have been covered up over the centuries (think London and Paris). So, more often than not, it's a new subway or construction project that ends up shedding light on the history buried below. Discoveries made this way will only continue to become more frequent in my opinion. Some good examples are in Rome and Naples, which are both expanding their inadequate subway systems. New discoveries in Naples where recently discussed in a fascinating article in Archaeology Magazine.

Speaking of Nero, I'm almost done with a wonderful biography on him. Nero, The End of a Dynasty by Miriam Griffin is a wonderfully researched look into the reign of one of Rome's most notorious emperors. The book is unique in the fact that it is not a chronological account of Nero's life, but more of a critique on his reign and himself as a man. The first part of the book goes into depth about all aspects of his Principate, ranging from his dealings with the Senate to his extravagant artistic endeavours. In the second part of the book, his eventual downfall is reviewed with scholarly precision. I definitely recommend Nero, The End of a Dynasty if you are looking to learn more about Nero and also looking for something other than a mere collection of chronological facts.