From Democrats to Kings: The Brutal Dawn of a New World from the Downfall of Athens to the Rise of Alexander the Great

by Michael Scott

“Accessible and punchy... a wide readership cannot fail to be entertained as well as instructed about a world that is both familiar and alien, modern as well as ancient.”―Paul Cartledge, author of Thermopylae. “It’s admirable of Michael Scott to shine a light on the forgotten 4th century, and he’s engaging about the culture that bloomed as Athens faded.” –The Daily Mail

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Greece, Classics, Ancient, Historical

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Michael Scott SFHEA (born 1981) is a British classical scholar, ancient historian, and presenter. He is professor of classics and ancient history at the University of Warwick.

In 2015 he was a foundation fellow of the Warwick International Higher Education Academy; he was appointed a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy in 2016. He was a National Teaching Fellow in 2017, and in 2017–2018 was a Leverhulme Research Fellow.

In 2020 he became the co-director of the Warwick Institute of Engagement.

He is president of the Lytham Saint Annes branch of the Classical Association.

He was awarded the Classical Association Prize in 2021, this is awarded to the individual who has done the most to raise the profile of Classics in the public eye.

He was named as the International Lego Classicist of the Year in 2022.

He was appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor (International) at the University of Warwick in 2023.

Source: wikipedia

Reviews

[Derek Weese · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a genuinely strangely written book on a truly fascinating, understudied topic. Michael Scott wrote this book in the form of a lecture series to graduate students, he admits as much in the introduction. As such, the writing style is...unique is a charitable way to put it. Often he will make modern analogies, and comparisons, none of which really flow with the subject matter and quite honestly they jolted me out of the narrative flow each time. It's my biggest complaint about an otherwise decent book.
The book covers the period immediately following the end of the Peloponnesian War, through to the creation of Alexander the Great's empire. The book is more than just a straight narrative done in a chronological sequence. It also takes time out to look at culture and societal issues as well as brief portraits of certain historical figures. Though the book covers a very violent period in Greek history, military history is clearly not Professor Scott's strong suit, and his descriptions of military campaigns and battles is incredibly brief, tertiary, and at times it seems as though he isn't fully sure of himself when describing things of a military nature.
Despite that, he doesn't do a bad job overall.
Following their defeat in the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians managed to bounce back, and within a generation had largely restored their commercial and naval empire antebellum. Sparta showcased it's total ineptitude in running an empire of their own, and when Thebes rose to challenge Spartan hegemony of the land, Thebes was able to forever break Spartan hold over much of mainland Greece.
However, like Sparta, Thebes was incapable of holding together a unified Greek state. And Athens continued their dangerous game of playing everyone off against the middle in an ever shifting web of broken alliances and abrogated treaties and coalitions.
For their part, the Persians meddled heavily in Greek affairs, and came close to making Greece, even if not united, an independent client state of the Persian Empire through loan accrued debt and political patronage. Not to say that the Greeks weren't themselves involved in Persian affairs. Xenophon's famous March to the Sea was only possible because he had been leading a sizeable mercenary army on the losing side of a Persian civil war.
It's not just Greece and Persia which play a big role in the epic, Sicily, specifically the polis of Syracuse, a Greek colony which rose to power on the island, plays a huge role in the tale, especially vis a vis Athens and Sparta. The entirety of the Hellenic world, pre Empire, is showcased quite well.
It is, however, a telling cautionary tale of the chaos brought about by an overabundance of power politics and interlocking conspiracies. The chaos of the Greek world in the decades leading up to the Macedonian conquest were a time of constant, smaller scale warfare, and chaotic politics. All of which weakened the traditional powers of southern Greece.
So when Philip of Macedon arises and begins to consume all of Greece, even united in a grand coalition, the southern Greek states are crushed by the Macedonians at the Battle of Chareonea (sp?) and the days of the independent polis come permanently to an end.
It is a tale of how democratic powers give way to strong men and eventually empire through their own greed, and chaotic power plays. It's mostly well done, though the modern analogies abruptly take one out of the narrative flow and knock the enjoyment level down a peg or two.
At least it did for me.
All in all, not a bad overview of a very fascinating, and understudied period of Classical Greek history.

[Iset · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not much to say about this one. As a popular history it works well, using clear narrative to explain the developments in ancient Greece between the close of the Peloponnesian War and the rise of Makedon; ideal for newcomers to the subject. It took me a long time to finish, mostly because other more important things in life caught up with me, but I do think it says something that I was able to leave this book hanging for so long rather than being compelled to finish it.

[Dan Ryder · Rating 2 out of 5]

Given some of the negative comments in other reviews, I'm a bit surprised this averages nearly four stars. My main complaints are first, the writing is mediocre. Lots of repetition, little in the way of organization (which could have prevented the repetition), and grand statements coming at the end of paragraphs that fail to provide support for them. Second, the historical scholarship is lacking. I'm sure Scott knows a lot about the period, but here he presents things as though his descriptive narrative is 100% certain, which is never the case in ancient history. There's little acknowledgement of alternative possibilities, or of conflicting sources. Third, the attempt at a unified narrative of a "period" of transition from democrats to kings falls rather flat. If you thought that in between Athens' fall at the hands of Sparta and the rise of Phillip and Alexander was pretty much a mess of Greeks duking it out with each other, it turns out you're right. Not that I didn't find that narrative interesting, but I might have been better off saving some time and just reading it on Wikipedia. (Well, that's too harsh, but you know what I mean.)

What I wanted was an exciting, well-written academic history. I feel like I got rather hastily written pop-history instead.

[Pieter · Rating 3 out of 5]

What would you know about the fourth century BC in Greece? The life of Alexander of Great and his three battles against Persia? Check! And the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? Nice. But apart from that?

As Michael Scott highlights, many has happened during these 100 years. On the ruins of the Peloponnesian War, Athens was kicked from its throne. A short time for Sparta to enjoy before Thebe ruled Greece. But changing coalitions between the different city states, allowed Macedonia to set up its internal political structure. By the time Philip II of Macedon became king, he was able to manoeuver skilfully and conquered Greece. In that sense, it is important to mention the battle of Mantinea (362 BC) whereby Athens, Sparta and Thebe weakened each other heavily. Only a few years later, at the battle of Chareonea (338 BC), Philip II of Macedon could pick up the Greek pieces to reunite the country and to prepare for a conquest of Persia. As all know, it was his son Alexander who finalised this job in less than 10 years.

[Alvin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A deliciously witty and erudite history of an historical era that - alas and alack - resembles our own in more ways than one.

[Duncan Idaho · Rating 4 out of 5]

Koristan pregled istorije Grka IV veka p.n.e. Neki događaji su nužno uprošćeni, jezik je na nekim mestima mogao biti "ozbiljniji".

[Jolanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. As a history student, I'm immensely interested in classical history and, remembering my course on classical history, this period in time, between the Peloponnesian war and Alexander in contrast with the classical age, is often stereotyped as a time of degeneration, in stark contrast with the glorified classical age.
The book is nicely constructed and cleverly written, I often laughed out loud at certain passages, like the following, on a messenger having to deliver an important messenger, but finding out his wife had lend out his bridle to a neighbour, thinking her husband wouldn't be needing it: "Screaming abuse at his wife for doing something without his authority, to which she probably replied with equal venom that she wasn't a mind-reader and that it was only a stupid bridle, their squabble ended in a public brawl."
My only complaint about the book is that the author seems a bit focused on the non-historian audience, which makes the book understandable for these people ( it often makes references to popular culture and movies, etc. ), but I find it wanting in depth for people who have already got a basic understanding of the period in time. From that point of view, the book often seems a bit over-simplified in its characterizations of certain key-figures, but on the other hand, that does make the characters a lot more recognizable -something I often have trouble with when reading Greek and Roman literature, remembering those *bloody* names-.
But overall, I consider this book an enjoyable read. It gives a wonderful characterizations and hands a wonderful argument on why this period in time should not be overlooked or put down as "un-important" and uninteresting, a dark-age of sorts between Athens' height of power and Alexander the Great.

[Icon Books · Rating 5 out of 5]

'A gloriously entertaining and provocative account of a period of Greek history that is no less important for having so often been overlooked.' Tom Holland 'I really enjoyed From Democrats to Kings - fascinating and exuberant on Ancient Athens, bringing their politics to life and right up to date, making Ancient Greece relevant for today.' Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of Young Stalin and Catherine The Great & Potemkin 'An admirably written chapter from the past that illustrates history's ability constantly, often tragically, to repeat itself.' Simon Jenkins 'The key to the success of this book is Scott's decision to focus on the individuals caught up in this period of change - the leaders, philosophers and soldiers and their reactions to fast moving events ... a very readable and enjoyable account of this period, bringing part of the ancient world vividly back to life.' Historyofwar.com

404 BC: Athens is exhausted at the end of a bloody war with Sparta and the mastership of Greece is left open for the taking. By 323BC, less than 100 years later, Athens, the rest of Greece, and a large part of the known world, has come under the control of a master of self-publicity and a model for despots for millennia to come: 'megas alexandros', Alexander the Great. Michael Scott tells the dramatic story of how, over the space of merely a generation, the ancient world was turned completely on its head, in a brutal power struggle whose outcome would define the world for centuries.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did not know a great deal about this era of Greek history but this book was on the bargain shelf so I had to pick it up. Michael Scott is a British historian and common commentator on the History Channel. He has impressed me before with his insights into the works of Euripides. This book follows the history of the Athenian city state from the death of Pericles until the time of Demetrius the Besieger. I did not understand how Athens was destroyed so utterly after the Peloponnesian War, had its magnificent walls levels, navy destroyed, endured the Rule of the Thirty Tyrants and still manages to tip the scales against Sparta in the Theban War. Scott cleared this all up for me admirably. He writes in a very basic nonacademic style and, while that would do well for someone who does not have a solid basis in Greco history, it can be annoying. He reminded the reader Xenophon led the 10,000 into Persia a half dozen times! It nearly grew insulting after a while. I was also put off by the remark Angelina Jolie played Olympias in the movie. Who cares? All in all, it was a good read as I did learn a great deal about the statesman Demosthenes and Athens during Alexander’s wars of conquests and death.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book focuses on one of the hardest things to explain and teach to beginning students of the Classics about Greek history - how do we go from the Athenian Birth of Democracy (which they do learn about) and the Spartan brand of radical communist liberty that produced the valor that held the pass at Thermopylae (which, if they don't learn as much about in school, at least they have usually seen the movie "300") to the seemingly unexpected rise of Alexander the Great and the end of democratic liberty? To most students, it seems as if history jumps directly from the World's First Democracy to the West's First Great Autocratic Monarch with nothing in between, so this book attempts to document the long decline of liberty and democracy through the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath and the eventual fall of Sparta to the rise of Greek Macedonia.

[Xander Niks · Rating 3 out of 5]

From Democrats to Kings. The Brutal Dawn of a New World from the Downfall of Athens to the Rise of Alexander the Great (2009) is a book by historian Michael Scott. As its title suggests, the book zooms in on Greece during the fourth century B.C. This period is often neglected; historians and teachers usually focus on the 'Golden Age' in the fifth century B.C. or post-Alexandrian world. With this book, Scott thus offers a very welcome addition to popular history.

The book can be summarized fairly well: the Pelopponesian War leaves the Greek world - especially Athens - in shambles. Sparta is able - for a short time and with the help of the Persians - to claim supremacy over the Greek world. Other city states don't like this very much and Sparta isn't known for its diplomacy, so rebellious alliances arise. Most of the first half of the fourth century B.C. is a perpetual war of Greek cities against one another, weakening all of them in the process. Ultimately, Philip of Macedon is able to unite his homeland and conquer Greece; his son Alexander then continues the Macedonian rule by expanding into Persia - ultimately conquering the biggest terrority ever. When Alexander dies, the remaining lords and bureaucrats fight over the remaining pieces of his empire. Greece, especially Athens, will never see a return to autonomous democracy again: kingdom is now their new reality.

Interwoven throughout all of this, is the complexity of economic, diplomatic and cultural reality. Scott shows how the importance of trade routes and grain production shaped much of this chaotic century. He also shows how history during this place and time is shaped by the actions of individuals - modern culture, with its emphasis on structure and power dynamics, tends to neglect this part of historical processes. Scott explains how one individual could impact the future of entire communities, for better or worse.

The downside of this book is that it's repetitive: Scott repeats himself many times throughout the book. This makes continuing reading a slog at certain times. Also, he offers a very general explanation. This makes the book a useful stepping stone to further reading - don't expect to learn too much details.

Ultimately, From Democrats to Kings is a fun read and its general approach offers readers unfamiliar with Greek history a very accessible introduction. For this, Scott deserves praise.

A final reflection on my part: in his Epilogue, Scott seems to advocate a postmodern perspective on history. According to him, history isn't objective - he even goes so far as to claim we all have our own version (and even visions) of history. He uses this epistemological position to argue against people who claim to be able to use history to learn lessons for today. Scott literally says that (in many aspects) the past is just the same as the present - but earlier. This supposedly means that people back then didn't know their future, which we study as our past.

As a general guideline, this is of course a healthy warning against historicism. But when taken too far, it reduces history as a science to 'just another version' (usually with some form of Foucaultian power dynamics added to it). I personally find this subjective view of history deeply problematic on many levels (epistemological, moral, political, etc.). Luckily, Scott's historical subjectivism is entirely limited to his Epilogue.

[John David · Rating 3 out of 5]

“From Democrats to Kings” arose from a series of lectures at Cambridge Michael Scott was asked to prepare that complemented their current course offerings. They already had a strong course on the history of fifth-century democratic Athens, and another one on the Hellenistic world that arose after Alexander III (“the Great”). The complement, then, seemed to almost jump out at him: he was going to cover the events between these two periods, which would basically end up being a history of fourth-century Greece. In fact, it wasn’t only at Cambridge, but also in the literature of the topic as well (outside of a few highly specialized academic monographs), that the fourth century seemed to get virtually no attention at all.

After the Spartan defeat of Athens at the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War in 404, Sparta installed the Thirty Tyrants to reign over the city. They managed to keep Athens under control for about eight months before it eventually fell apart. In the meantime, even Spartan allies like Thebes were getting tired of Spartan hegemony. Persia was willing to do just about anything to maintain its power in Asia Minor, where many of its city-states were located. Therefore, over the slow roll out of the fourth century, we see a transition from the democratic stability of the fifth century to the competitive, increasing unstable situation of disjointed cities. The resulting tumult and strife only set the stage for Macedon’s Philip II to take over. Through a series of reforms which completely restructured the Macedonian military forces and implemented the Macedonian phalanx, Philip II had conquered pretty much all of Greece and within half a dozen more years democracy in ancient Greece was pretty much dead. He set the ground for his son, Alexander the Great, to conquer an empire that would eventually stretch from Afghanistan to Egypt to Thrace.

The resulting story, though, is an odd mishmash of military history with occasional excursuses into intellectual, cultural, and social history. The military continues occasionally continues throughout the second two-thirds of the book too, and you hear a bit about all the usual suspects: Thebes, Athens, Sparta, Persia, et cetera. As someone who personally happens to derive little enjoyment from the detailed, minute-by-minute recounting of a battle or a particular maneuver, the first third of the book I found to be rather tedious.

What the general reader could really benefit from, I think, is a book that takes up the same time period, but better knows how to balance the scholarly nature of the history with an engaging narrative (though admittedly if you enjoy military history, you might like the book a bit more than I did). Unfortunately, the book industry seems to think that intelligent, accessible, short books on ancient history are simply a paradox. It either needs to be a pithy festschrift on the discovery of a recently discovered soldier’s footprint at Thermopylae with 300-page annotated bibliography, or an attempt at fitting everything that every happened in ancient Greece and Rome into 600 pages. There is no middle ground.

[Marin · Rating 2 out of 5]

A chirpy journey through about 100 years of Greece's history up to the death of Alexander the Great, centred on the downfall of democratic Athens.

The subject is of interest, especially now when many have other ideals for running their countries.
Unfortunately, the author concentrates too much on the main and on too many minor characters to have the time to present the economic and social context of the events, the things which apart from egos, moved the historic participants.

The whole story feels hollow, like a tv documentary concentrated too much on the image.
Demosthenes and the bad results of many wars Athens fought in the period cannot be the only reasons for the demise of democracy in Athens.

The language used is exaggeratedly "modern" and "playful", probably the author does not trust his target audience will be able to concentrate otherwise. Quite a lot of comparisons are forced.

A disappointment

[Cristina Mestre · Rating 5 out of 5]

An ancient historian myself, I know that Greek history is complicated, and the period between the end of the Peloponnesian War even more so; not only is it a time of political unrest with a number of poleis fighting for hegemony, but it's also a period that, not quite belonging to the Classical period nor to Alexander's time, it has been (to my mind) slightly ignored by historians. However, Michael Scott manages to capture all the events and the actors that populated this time masterfully, sucking you into a book that is at the same time entertaining and informative. I never once got lost with names or events, so that's saying quite a lot!! A wonderful read on a not-so-well-know time of Greek history.

[Ana Luisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Se você pretende ler um livro comprometido com a análise de fontes e debates historiográficos, este livro não irá te satisfazer. É muito mais um livro voltado para quem deseja saber o panorama geral da dissolução da democracia ateniense e o apogeu de Filipe e o seu filho, Alexandre, o Grande, de forma simples. O maior mérito deste livro certamente é a narrativa que não é nada enfadonha, embora o autor peque ao tentar fazer paralelos entre o Mundo Antigo e o mundo contemporâneo. Um bom livro, simples e cumpre o que lhe cabe. Mais do que isso, você não encontrará por aqui, mas é um bom começo.

[reoccurrence]

This book was an interesting read about Greece’s transition from Democracy to monarchies in their city states. Scott talks about Alexander the Great’s reign and how it kind of caused a shift in the Greek’s attitude towards politics. It highlights many internal and external factors that resulted in the fall of democracy and the rise of Kings. I read this book in an effort to understand the beginning of the end of Ancient Greece and their future of being conquered by Rome

[Nicholas Conlon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think the reviews on this book are harsh. It’s a slow start, for sure, but the book gathers pace and flow shortly after that. I found it fascinating learning about a time in Greek history that I knew very little about - between the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War to Sparta through to Alexander the Great. As the title suggests - the end of democracy and the rise of a time of Kings

Would recommend for anyone interested in this period

[Murilo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Livro de fácil leitura e panorâmico. Bom para pessoas que não estão habituadas com a história antiga grega e precisam ter uma noção sobre eventos e sujeitos políticos da época.

Entretanto, como todo manual de história - compreendo esse livro dessa forma - peca em não aprofundar social/politica/culturalmente os processos que trata. Não há debate historiográfico relevante nesse sentido.

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling telling of how the Greek world changed between the downfall of the Athenian empire and the death of Alexander the Great. The book was easy to read and covers an era of history not usually discussed in popular history books.
Only criticism is that some details were very vague i.e. names of Persian kings left out, making it harder to link to wider history of the Mediterranean and Asia.

[Erika Sbarra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saggio decisamente interessante, probabilmente non tanto neutrale ma comunque affascinante che affronta con chiarezza di dettagli gli avvenimenti e i cambiamenti avvenuti in Grecia nel IV secolo a.C. dopo la fine della guerra del Peloponneso.
Nota di merito è la ricca bibliografia suddivisa per capitoli.

[Saurabh Odak · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very nicely written book on ancient Greeks. The book keeps you engaged throughout till the end. The reader is not lost remembering various people and the author explains the narrative like a tale in a very easy way to remember.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found some of the negative reviews here puzzling. To me the book was fast-paced and did a great job at explaining a dizzying web of shifting alliances, battles and individuals, in a chaotic period.
If I could give it 4.5 I would.

[Daniel G · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed the book. I learned a great deal about the wars in ancient Greece, and I enjoyed his writing style. However, I didn't learn about the political spectrum in ancient Greece leading from democracy to theocracy or empire. So, I felt the book's title a bit misleading.

[Mariana Navarro · Rating 2 out of 5]

Leitura cansativa

[Walt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scott offers a coherent narrative on the history of Athens in the fourth Century BC. There is some fluff around the edges; but his main thrust is a history of Athens. He has a catchy title and a solid knowledge of the material. His delivery is a strange mixture of free style and academese. The writing probably puts off many readers because it includes so much informal talk. "Athens was a slippery fish; it was the slipperiest of fish." Scott does make a wonderfully complex historical argument that historians should appreciate. However, by mixing the two writing styles he probably alienates more than he welcomes readers.

Scott is a historian at Cambridge. He has solid credentials and his knowledge is very clear in the pages. He is also a sometimes on-screen consultant for the history channel. This is also clear in the writing. Readers familiar with the eclectic offerings of the History Channel know all too well how they look for speakers that are charismatic and passionate. Scott offers both in abundance. Consequently, much of the book looks like a script for the History Channel.

Scott offers a complex hypothesis that the rise and fall of charismatic leaders in 4th Century Greece led to constant warfare over personal egos until Philip II of Macedon won the constant war of egos, ushering in a period of stability and economic prosperity that the Greeks gladly accepted in lieu of their slippery Democracy. It seems like an overly simplified view.

Scott works hard at trying to set competition between philosophers and tyrants. He talks about the meetings of Plato and the various tyrants of Syracuse. However, he does not convincingly show that the Greeks really cared about those few meetings. His argument is interesting, if ultimately weak because he avoids citing sources and offering more evidence for a society captivated by the fourth century popularity contest. The rise and fall of charismatic and powerful leaders is hardly limited to 4th C. Greece. A generic history of the era would have sufficed; but would not make for good television. While Plato may have lectured on the qualities of a good leader; Scott does not discuss them, nor does he discuss the arguments between tyrants and philosophers. To me, this leaves a huge hole in his argument.

Scott does not discuss his sources very well. Readers probably picked up on his repeated references to Plutarch's Lives and Xenophon's Histories. There were many other sources from the era. He barely glances over these. This probably has more to do with brevity to hold the attention of lay audiences than trying to prove his point. The lack of references probably accounts for the negative reviews. However, Scott possess clear writing and a strong central theme focusing on Athens.

The book abruptly ends. I was disappointed with that part. Alexander allowed Athens to continue with her Democracy as long as they were loyal to him. Scott is a little ambiguous as to what is loyal. He admits that Athens sheltered someone who stole treasure from Alexander. Athens did experience an economic rebirth under Alexander. Scott makes a strong case for prosperity. True, that could entice the Athenians to cast off their democracy for Macedonian kings. However, we do not know how long that prosperity lasts. Alexander ruled Athens for about ten years. They may have been prosperous; but after his death, civil war was back in Greece. Scott glosses over the wars of succession. But readers could easily glimpse the reality in the book. There were multiple contenders in Greece/ Macedon. Athens had to pick sides.

Scott leaves his readers with one brief passage of a tyrant ruling Athens for about ten years until another contender removed the tyrant. The joyful Athenians, the slipperiest of the slippery, elected him king and....what? That is it. Did they keep the king? Did that king last? What happened to Athens next? Who knows? The book just ends when the Athenians vote for a king in their darkest hour of need.

Overall, the book is interesting. Scott has a writing style that is easily digestible. He makes a bold argument, that is probably highly debatable. It is refreshing to see someone take such a novel approach to writing when modern academic research is extremely critical and unreceptive to novel approaches to history. Readers can certainly learn something from the book. However, there is much more history than philosophy or political science. Scott does not evaluate the pros and cons of any government style. This book is a history of famous leaders, not ideas, so the title is a bit misleading. Nevertheless, the book is worth reading if only for his synthesis of the era.

[Matthias · Rating 2 out of 5]

Credulous, entertaining, a bit breathless. Found it useful insofar as it gave me at least a narrative to hang on the period.

[Lasiter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Par mi, que tengo un vacío total sobre la época, el libro me ha parecido excelente, bien estructurado y muy ameno de leer, incluso llega a ser divertido en algunos pasajes. Una visión muy interesante de la democracia griega con sus aciertos y desaciertos

[Derek Weese · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers the period from the end of the Peloponnesian War (probably misspelled that...)and the death of Alexander the Great. It covers it's subject matter in ok style...but it could have been better. Definitely a book for someone who has no prior knowledge of the time period leading up to Alexander, but not detailed enough for someone who loves Classical history. A major quibble of mine was the authors constant use of pop cultural references when trying to make the subject relatable to today. I understand why he did it, but it still annoyed me. The author also related the political climate of the ancient world to today as a warning. He clearly relates Athens with the US. Not a bad idea really, but it could have been more compellingly done with more detail. Also, as a minor quibble: not detailing either of the two most important battles of the time period (Mantinea and Chareonea) is almost a crime against history. Understanding those two battles puts the rise of Alexander in context. All in all a decent book; it whetted my appetite for more and I'm sure there is something out there with more detail than this. Still, as a primer it is decent.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was "populist" history at both its best and its worst. It was very accessible, which was useful particularly in keeping the different people of the period separate from each other, which is often missing from more academic treatments of the subject -- these characters have more personality, not described in terms of their conquests / political achievements / failures. My major qualm is that sometimes it seems the author goes a little overboard in trying to "dumb down" the material to a laypeople audience, frequent references to Brad Pitt in Troy or Angelina Jolie in Alexander providing eye-rolling disconnects from being engrossed in the period.

Overall it was a valuable addition to a, as the author notes, frequently skipped-over historical period. Peloponnesian War --> Alexander the Great...wait there was stuff happening in between? :-)

[Jason Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book, but not necessarily inspiring -- history can be boring. However this book did get me to thinking about the fact that human history is littered with with this oscillation between group rule and despotism. I know a lot of people like to just say it was paternalistic and androginous, but that just shows a lack of really studying the past. There are so many women and while the men get their names put on temples they also get their names thrown under the waggon. This book reminded me what Joe Strummer said, "The future is unwritten. If I should have free speach, so then should everyone." The deity inspired monarchies essentially gone from the Western world, but that doesn't really mean anything. All people should be free from both government and religion.