Alexander the Great: Journey to the End of the Earth ... (ISBN 0060570121)

Read 'Alexander' and weep for the "leaders" of today's world:
This book is a gem, in large because the analysis of the "greatness" of Alexander in the fifth and closing chapter is designed to generate thought, debate and ideas for every student of history. "The impact of Alexander on the Mediterranean world has always been a subject for debate," Cantor notes, and proceeds to add provocatively to that debate. Alexander, like Achilles, Caesar, King Arthur, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, embodies the spirit of the times and the people of their eras. Alexander and Achilles were heroic; Caesar and Arthur were innovators; Lincoln and Churchill gave words to enhance the decency of great nations. Lincoln, to cite an example, did not invent democracy in America. However, when he defined democracy as government "of the people, by the people, for the people", he greatly sharpened and enhanced already existing attitudes. Alexander did the same in his time; he did not invent war, but he set an ideal seldom matched and thus established the warrior ideal for much of the Mediterannean. King Arthur does the same with his round table; Churchill gives credit to the British people for stopping Hitler. Now, consider George Bush with his Texas swagger and flight suit while strutting across the deck of an aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished" as if he were a warrior. Alexander, in contrast to the coddled and well-protected life of Bush, survived numerous serious wounds acquired while leading his troops from the front. Whether it's Bush or Clinton or Reagan, there's a vast difference between Alexander and the perspiration and spin of today's leaders. As Canton aptly shows, it's why "the Great" title is retired. Intended or not, there are numerous subtle parallels between ancient and modern events in the Near and Middle Easts. Alexander was successful because he responded immediately and brilliantly to local events rather than try to rule from afar; instead of being an ideologue, he worshipped every God he met along the route of his conquests. Because he was handicapped by "faulty intelligence," when he reached Afghanistan and India he realized it was time to listen to his troops, then "cut and run". Why? To quote Cantor, "One of the old soldiers, a man named Coenis . . . . gave the speech of his life, ending with these words: 'Sir, if there is one thing above all others a successful man should know, it is when to stop'. Instead of trying to stay the course, Cantor says "Alexander sulked for two days but then tried to find a way to make this defeat appear to be a victory." Cantor offers an intriguing psychological assessment of Alexander; not only was he "the supreme exemplar of that old pagan world" but he also knew how to sulk and then accept the will of his troops. Perhaps that is why there are no modern Alexanders; today we tend to look at his heroism, courage, strength and vision but overlook his ability to sulk. It's a masterful biography, not merely because of what it says about Alexander but also for what it teaches us about ourselves.

Written by a college freshman?:
This is the worst book ever written on Alexander. There are historical inaccuracies on nearly every page. Heresay and universally discounted legend are presented uncritically alongside historically accepted fact.

Short and Readable:
This is a great little history, and I hope the publishing industry gives us more of them. It's amazing how much of history was created by teens and twentysomethings. Alexander and his army were like a punk rock band gone wild. He drinks and debauches his way through half a continent. He must have had extraordinary health given the punishing environment and the many battle wounds. He is a master builder and does have a command of battle strategy (if not his army). I found the comparisons to Ceasar and the speculation of how Alexander would have done against the Roman army thought provoking. Not mentioned is that Ceasar earned the support of his army, Alexander just expected it and was unable to keep it. There is an interesting the analysis of his "greatness" at the end and a description of the other major biographical works.

Shoddy, dull biography:
Is it possible to make the life one of the most compelling men who ever lived into an incredibly boring biography? Cantor does it somehow. I barely made it through half the book, it was so tediously written. Worse, much of the facts were oversimplified to the point of being wrong. It's not even smart enough to be a children's book, although it's written at that level of diction. Please don't make it your choice.

Why was this book written?:
I bought two copies of this book so that my grandson and I could read and discuss it. My two purposes were 1) teach him about Alexander the Great and 2) show him how scholarly history books, as opposed to history text books, are written. This book has served as a good example of a bad example. To be charitable, I see that the copyright belongs to the Estate of Norman Cantor and was published after his death. I will assume that his illness led to the low quality of this book. Otherwise, I must assume he was a piss-poor professor. For the sakes of New York University, Tel Aviv University, and the Rhodes and Fulbright organizations, besides Mr. Cantor's reputation, the Estate should never have published this book in its present form. I am very disinclined to read any other works of Mr. Cantor's.