Alexander the Great and His Time

by Agnes Savill

Here is a full study of the life, personality, accomplishments, and failures of Alexander of Macedon, more commonly known as Alexander the Great.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Audiobook, Biography Memoir, Military Fiction

322 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1959

Reviews

[Tom · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read Savill first as a boy (say about ten-ish) and fell in love with Alexander of Macedon as a hero and role model. Revisiting this now horribly dated tome (Savill, though writing in the post-war period was an Edwardian in every thing which matters) I am still entranced by Savill's scholarship and energy, but must admit her totally biased study (this is almost a love letter to the great conqueror; Savill may have been his first modern "fan girl"!) Happily, Alexander's other 20th century biographers, even Tarn, are more balanced, so this seems dustier than Alexander's tomb (wherever that may lie under modern Alexandria). Having adopted her parenthetical writing style for this brief review, you can see how tiring her study can become. At least, I was only a lad when I first loved it....

[Juliew. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not going to lie and like the author I'm very willing to see Alexander's good points or should I say great?Yes,I think I should.I'm a life-long fan and have read many,many books on the conqueror and each time I read one I never fail to be amazed at his accomplishments and abilities. But there are a lot of theories and assumptions in here.Very interesting assumptions and theories but still assumptions and theories. Can we ever truely be sure who Alexander really was?Everyone has their own Alexander and this author proved no exception.

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

this author is full of crap

[Denise · Rating 2 out of 5]

This isn't so much biography as hagiography, and Savill frequently sounds more like an unabashed fangirl than a serious scholar. In her depiction, Alexander was a perfect paragon of virtue, chivalry and temperance who never did a single even slightly objectionable thing in his life and was of course also straight as an arrow, and woe betide any who dare imply otherwise. Anything that doesn't fit into her rose-coloured view or 1950s morals is either merrily ignored or quickly explained away, with the end result that in her zeal to present an extremely favourable view of her subject she has managed to render this complex, fascinating, and yes, flawed, historical figure quite unbearably boring in his supposed superhuman perfection.

[Gary · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you ever wonder how Alexander earned his appellation then you'll find several answers in this book. Ms. Savill's unabashed and relentless hero worship of Alexander serves more as an example of how some historians run the risk of falling in love with their subject than as a historiographical study. By the end of the book, one can only wonder if "the Great" is a strong enough title for Ms. Savill's taste. Alexander's every virtue is praised with near religious zeal, his every fault minimized, ignored or rationalized, and his legacy extolled in superlative after superlative. She does get the facts straight where they are lying around. Once picked up and accounted for, however, those facts are quickly polished to a hue unmatched in the natural world.

This process ranges from the silly regarding, say, the denials that Alexander ever over-used alcohol, to the outright offensive--such as the language that characterizes the military campaigns as a necessary byproduct of Alexander's desire to bring about the brotherhood of all mankind... by slaughtering a few thousand here and there, and just so long as they all ultimately were brothers under his rule. In order to derive her portrayal, Savill cherry picks from her sources, always erring in favor of the most positive representation of Alexander, and discounts as salacious any that might indicate her subject was less than superhuman. She rejects criticisms using the loosest, and broadest terms with such abandon that an objective reader has to roll his or her eyes at least twice in any given chapter.

It is surprising given that adoration that the entire book isn't dedicated to Alexander, but only about two thirds are directly related to him. The latter parts of the book are an overview of the period, and become increasingly abstract and even non-sequitur. Modern poets, philosophers and psychologists are liberally quoted or referenced on the most tenuous of grounds. Long musings on Jungian psychology are loosely connected to Greek thought or Alexander's godly demeanor.

I can only surmise that Ms. Savill was attempting to rectify the diminishing numbers of students in the mid-20th century who seriously studied the classical age, and that she decided the best way to do that was to act as a cheerleader. But that way lies... well, lies. If not outright lies then mis-characterizations, omissions, and rationalization; in short, bad historiography. Historians inevitably fail to reach the objectivity that is the ideal of the profession, but abandoning objectivity entirely in an academic work is no virtue regardless of the motivation.

I can't recommend this book to anyone looking to learn about Alexander or his time. It is possible to glean the facts from the text, but it requires spending an awful lot of time and effort divorcing them from the relentless rhetoric. Overall, I'd give this one and a half stars (the half star being there for the accuracy of the timeline in the earlier portions of the book) and I normally round up for Goodreads reviews. Readers interested in a biography of Alexander would almost surely be better off picking up something more contemporary.

[Jerome Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Here is a full study of the life, personality, accomplishments, and failures of Alexander of Macedon, more commonly known as Alexander The Great."

The book is a great tool for researching history of that era. It is divided into two parts. Part one deals mostly with Alexander's campigans. What intrigued me the most was how Alexander organized his marches and how he maintained a high morale with his officers and men. A bit dry in places but what history book is not. Part two presents the character of Alexander and finishes out with fill ins about city-state politics, citizenship, and religious thought of Ancient Greece. Though the latter two subjects were interesting this reviewer thought they were unnecessary and slowed the pace considerably; however, the author obviously felt it was significant.

There are many portions that are presented speaking of Alexander in a personal way. The story of his horse for example, as well as his love for exercise, and his treatment toward kingly prisoners and their families. A good read if interested in " . . . one of the most powerful personalities of antiquity. He influenced the spread of Hellenism and instigated profound changes in the course of world development." All in all I learned that much more by reading this book. Well worth the time.

[Logan Zwerneman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Other than biblical figures, Alexander may be the greatest world-changer in history. While it’s hard to understate his impact in regards to Westernization of the world, I think Savill maybe gave the Greeks more credit than they deserved— for example, Hebrew morals and laws predated them by quite a bit. Still though, this is an excellent primer on the man who started (or at least evangelized) Western culture, and Savill communicates his life in such a way as to make apparent how he influenced other major conquerors (Julius, Charlemagne, Napoleon, etc). Very textbook-y, but a short read, all things considered!

[booklady · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first part is about his life. Then, a review of ancient and modern authors who wrote history which included or were specifically about Alexander the Great. "The more eloquent the speech, the more doubtful the voracity of the author."

[Colin Baumgartner]

Delighted in this short little primer on Alexander. Not only a fascinating window into the life of the leader, but also a telling glimpse into the mindset of the Brits.

Wish there had been a bit more detail about Alexander. Some bits felt quite thin.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's fine but halfway through we finish with Alexander and then try to cover a dozen disparate aspects of Ancient Athens.

[Michael P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a strange but mostly informative book. Savill's scholarly approach seems quite dated. This is not a surprise since the book was published in the fifties, but it does not live up to current scholarly standards. She is manifestly a fan of Alexander out to debunk the debunkers, which she does by pointing out that the general is unlikely to have accomplished much if he were the licentious drunkard that some claim him to have been. The problem is that while this seems logical, she does not take on the specific evidence or claims for Alexander's weaknesses, and so just paper overs the problems. I don't know that Savill is wrong and she may very well be correct, but she does not make her case convincingly.

This is also an odd book in that it is fairly long and Alexander had a short life. Turns out that just over half the book is about the general's life. The rest is what happened to his kingdom after is death, a bizarre excursion into Jungian pseudo-psychology and spiritualism, a look at the sources for historical study of Alexander in which those who support his nobility are considered reliable and those who undermine it are considered unreliable, a look at previous biographers in which those who affirm his nobility and accomplishments are held to be good and the debunkers are held to be questionable, and a not especially good or bad primer on Greek history and culture. That is why this is a strange but mostly informative book.

[Karl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Basic, if overly idealized, portrait of Alexander of Macedon. Savill covers Alexander's entire life and develops a very specific theme: Alexander is framed as trying to build a world community, where all nations would be united and all people would live in a spirit of brotherhood. As other reviewers have noted, Savill is loathe to acknowledge Alexander's many flaws and frequently rejects as spurious anything that undermines the heroic image she constructs.

Incidentally, I found myself intrigued by the author, after a little reading about her life. Born in 1875, she studied at the University of St. Andrews, becoming its first female graduate in 1895. She then received a medical degree from the University of Glasgow in 1901. She specialized in dermatology and radiology, worked at several hospitals, and treated the wounded in the First World War. She must have been a remarkable woman to pursue a medical career in a time of such intense institutionalized sexism. The world wars do seem to have shaded her study of history, as she frequently compares the violence of the ancient world with that of the modern.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Manages to make one of the most exciting men of the world boring. The first half is a fairly interesting, if dry, recounting of Alexander's campaign and the 20 years after his death. The next quarter is a recounting of the other authors who have written about Alexander. This part is terribly boring and can be skipped/skimmed. The last part is an overview of the Greek city-states and general life in Greece. It's a bit better but still pretty dry.
Overall the author comes across as opinionated and pompous through out the book. The audio book also suffers from the fact that parts of it were re-recorded and don't fit in seamlessly with the rest. This was very annoying at first but got less distracting as I listened.

[Michael Gerald · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good, if sometimes fawning, portrayal of the Macedonian leader, this book is still a fascinating read, considering that the sources of Alexander's life are ancient and should be treated with caution.

[NuevoRain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to the audiobook, I really like Nadia May the reader. The author spends half the book telling the story of Alexander then dives into the times, the resulting lives of his aides de camp, and philosophy. Really well done, felt like I understood both Alexander and the context of his life.

[Bob Lundquist · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alexander the Great grew up in an intellectual and physical milieu. This was probably fairly standard for aristocratic children of the time (4th century BC). He had Aristotle as his primary teacher and was raised in the military tradition of Macedonia. It was during this time he learned how to best deal with people. For he was hardly twenty years old before he had to take over running the country. A much-desired effort by the ruling class of Macedonia and other Grecian city-states was to avenge itself against Persia for past invasions and loss of life. That is the underlying cause for Alexander conquering much of the known world. He started out with Turkey and the Middle East and Egypt. Then he headed east for Persia itself and points even farther east. His success was due to his military genius and the people that supported him. He was unpredictable and daring. Many times, he beat an enemy in ways that could not be foreseen and even being outnumbered. Then he gave generous terms to the defeated and granted them much in how they ran their countries. He left garrisons, established towns, and taught the more primitive societies how to farm and subsist on their land. He got as far as western India and then his supporters urged him to return home due to the army’s fatigue and length of time from their families. On the way back, he got a far as present-day Iraq and there died of a disease at the tender age of 33. His generals and other supporters then fought each other over the spoils.

This book is a good introduction to Alexander the Great and the complications of his times. It is an older history (a reprint done by Barnes and Noble) with an older style and has only a bibliography. It also does not have pictures that are referred to in the text. It outlines how the conquests were made including how the institutions and religion of the day influenced and encouraged his actions. A major factor was all the palace intrigue surrounding him that did not help. One major factor was that his mother was not a Macedonian and this contributed to those who questioned his legitimacy as king. Despite its age and style, a good read for those interested in how Alexander became great.

[Sky Leach · Rating 4 out of 5]

My review from 2005. I should go back and read this again if I can find the book (it's probably in storage or on a backup drive or something).

Original Review:

"I have only recently in my life become interested in history. My professors and the teachers of my elementary history classes were about as interested in history as I was (which was not at all) or total weird freaks that should have been committed for social readjustment.

But now I find that there was a lot that I missed by glossing over a classical education in favor of more scientific pursuits. I picked up this book because it comes highly recommended and I might just learn something.

I learned something about Alexander and Greek history indeed from this book. I especially liked the topic diversion that the book took. Instead of spending exhausting hours examining each feat of Alexander for it’s philosophic, military and cultural significance each aspect of each feat was examined in a different part of the book. This left room for a more fast-paced examination of each aspect of the exploits of this great man which a high-strung person like myself needs to maintain attentiveness.

One thing I did not like about the book is that Agnes Savill seems to spend far more energy on debunking his idea of misrepresentations on Alexander’s character than on proving his disputations of those misrepresentations. I must admit that I largely agree with the evidence in favor of Savill’s view of events but the tone was almost petulant when pointing out the alleged injustices of Alexander’s critics.

What I most loved about the book was that it gave the casual reader seeking an overview of Alexander’s life a concise narrative of that period in time without becoming pedantic.

I give the book 4 stars."

[Dead John Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book.

Written in the 1950s it is dated in its style

As someone with almost no education in history as a child, it filled in many gaps in my ignorance. Yes, the author's portrayal may be somewhat biased, but scant it can't be called.

I'm surprised but the ferocity of some of the haters in these reviews. They appear to be judging Alexander rather than understanding him and his time, for, isn't this the point of reading history?

If a person wants to simply judge people from the past then why bother reading history at all? There is not a blameless human around, either then or now. Understanding a person or event is far more valuable.

A judgment is simply a black or white flag raised above a person or event by someone who does so under that illusion of impartiality.

To understand a person you have to stand in their shoes and look through their eyes, without that context you have nothing.

But I digress. I really liked her style and bias. Reading detractions is like un-painting a portrait. Personally, I'd rather read a movie review from someone who enjoyed the movie than someone who can only point out its faults.

She obviously adored Alexander and I'm firmly in her camp because of her enthusiasm, her thoroughness, and her dedication to her subject.

Besides which, his achievements were truly astonishing when you consider that the killing was all done by hand and he fought directly in those battles. How can you compare that man to anyone who can kill thousands without ever standing on the soil of his victims. Alexander The Great, yes, indeed.

[Arianne X · Rating 2 out of 5]

What is the Biographer without the Conqueror?

The ‘Great’ needs the biographer to write and the biographer needs the ‘Great’ to conquer. What is a biographer without deeds to glorify and what is a conqueror without glorification? Without the biographer, the deeds of the conqueror cannot be immortalized for us to gawk at. It was Soren Kierkegaard who noted that the poet and the hero are in a relationship of interdependency. It seems that Agnes needs Alexander and Alexander needs Agnes in much the same manner. It is now the biographer and conqueror who are in a relationship of twisted interdependency. Without the biographer, “The Great” is not great.

How will we ever transcend misery, torture, brutality and injustice when they can easily be transfigured for our delight? In how much blood letting does the biographer share? Without the kindly biographer, how is the blood lust of the great butcher to be cast in the language of fame, glory, and accomplishment? Without the kindly biographer to lionize and exalt the great criminals of history, would there be fewer slaughters? This overly kind treatment of Alexander who earned the sobriquet of ‘The Great’ through his great butchery, suggests to me that no great man is a good man until the biographer gets a hold of the story. How many holocausts must we endure for the sake of human advancement and human development? If we want to find original sin, we need look no further.

[Christopher Wells · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first 2/3 contains a good (positive and realistic) history of Alexander’s life and makes a good companion to Mary Renault’s historical fiction concerning Alexander Last 1/3 contains odd and scattered musings about Ancient Greek culture. Recommended for people interested in Pre-Hellenic cultures of the Middle East and Central Asia.

[J. David Knecht · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yes its a dated bio of Alexander and survey of Hellenism that relies mostly on secondary sources but it’s not bad considering when it was written. But enjoyed it nonetheless. There are so many good books and podcasts out there about Alexander, the wars of the didochoi, and the Hellenistic age so you can look elsewhere for a more detailed, thoughtful, and less ideological treatment.

[Mick · Rating 2 out of 5]

The idealistic view of Alexander as a benevolent ruler overshadows what could be a decent overview of his campaigns. I was after a robust history, I didn’t get it from this. Not worth your time unless you are interested in reading a biased account.

[Patrick Trent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tells the story of Alexander the Great's life. Afterward, the author puts Alexander in his place in time. I should know this important figure and those of his generation for they have effected all of western civilization.

[James Biser · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting history of Alexander the Great. I listened to it as an audiobook and it sounded almost like a ticker-tape history of the conqueror as he pushed across the continents conquering the world. I enjoyed the insight into Alexander's mind in his education and philosophies.

[Sonstepaul · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fine survey of an important figure and his state and culture. I guess I had expected something with greater depth, but instead you have the finest entry-level text that I wish I’d had thirty years ago, as intstands in place for three or four other textbooks. Nothing stunning or world shaking.

[Isaac Esseku · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great historical piece but delivery was subpar. It’s a drudge to get through, but if you really want to know about Alexander, this will be worth your time.

[Jim Swike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, not his military accomplishments but looks at the Character of Alexander. Great resource and textbook as well. Enjoy!

[Thom Disch · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book was a very detailed discussion of Alexander the Great but there was no really story line. It felt very much like a dissertation.

[Leader2light · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful book.

[Петр Федичев · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book is factually interesting but is maybe too apologetic