Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire (Ancient Warfare and Civilization)

This book filled a yawning gap in my knowledge of the period between Alexander's defeat of the Persians in 333 BCE, and the essentially Judea-centric history of the 2nd century BCE's Ptolemies and - more importantly - the Seleucids, and their oppression of the Judean religion which led up to the Maccabean revolt in 167 BCE. Of course one knew the bare outlines; that Alexander had died in 323 having just completed his conquest of India, and that his generals then fought it out to decide who was getting what. I did not even realize that the word Diadokhoi meant successors; I thought it was something to do with there being twelve of them. Somehow or other, I knew, Ptolemy ended up with Egypt, and Seleucus with Syria and Babylonia, - but the rest ? I had heard of the one-eyed Antigonus who seemed to have ruled in Asia Minor, but Greece, Macedon, Cyprus, etc were unknowns until the Romans showed up in the second century BCE.The second function of this book was to dispel any romantic illusions - good history usually does that - about Alexander, this young king who created the first true world-spanning empire, and then died before he could enjoy it - "those whom the gods love.." etc. He was a formidable general and his record of conquest is true; but conquest was all it was; he had not created anything like an empire out of it - which was why it was so easily torn apart once he was gone (it might have done so any way even if he had lived - which would have somewhat spoiled his story). Alexander - like most of his contemporaries - was hard drinking (which may have contributed to his untimely demise) and, by modern standards, cruel and treacherous. He would think nothing of having a friend or ally killed, if its served his purpose or represented any potential competition to his dominance. He had adopted the Eastern style of absolutism, rather than the more ostensibly collegial Greek/Macedonian style.Alexander's plans for the future - inso far as they are known to history - involved only more conquest; his goals - and those of his successors - did not encompass the "spread of Greek/Hellenistic culture" around the world. The fact that that happened in the years after his death was an unintended consequence of there being so many Greek and Macedonian soldiers - together with their wives and children - scattered around the world between the Aegean and India. Initially, they were there as part of conquering armies, and to man garrisons; then they stayed and peopled the cities that these garrisons became. These colonialists spoke their own language, imported their own architecture, their gymnasia and theater, etc because they wanted to feel at home away from home. Nothing was intended for the benefit of the locals; however, inevitably over time, there was a trickle-down effect, and the process we know as Hellenization was underway.This book pauses periodically from its main theme, the 40 years of war that followed Alexander's death, to insert a number of parenthetic commentaries on important societal, religious and cultural trends - such as the spread of Hellenism - that occurred during the period. Not only do they make for a very welcome break from this account of unbridled ambition, treachery and slaughter, but they are highly informative and insightful. For example, I had unquestionably accepted the proposition that it was the Greeks who had introduced the emphasis on individuality into the East, which led to the development of the idea of the imortality of the soul, and caused changes in burial practice among Jews. I learned here that individuality was not a concept of Classical Greece, which emphasized the collegial nature of civic endeavour. It was only - post Alexander - when previously independent city-states became absorbed in kingdoms or empires, and the local citizenry lost control of their own polities, that the emphasis - in art, statuary, drama and in religion - shifted away from the communal to the individual.As for the main theme itself - the 6 wars that were waged during this period - the author deals with these in a very engaging and direct fashion. The names - of places and protagonists - and the relationships between them, are bewildering; the author provides a good set of maps and a list of the dramatis personae; reference to these while reading is essential, if the reader wants to make any sense of the various twists and turns of the plot. So, as well as an informative and enjoyable reading experience, this is also a valuable reference book.

In Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire, historian and classicist Robin Waterfield has rescued the Successors to Alexander the Great from historical obscurity. These capable and ambitious marshals of the young Macedonian world conqueror were too often eclipsed by the forceful personality and god-like achievements of Alexander himself. "The main purpose in this book," Waterfield writes, "has been to revive the memory of the Successors" in a lively and highly readable narrative. And their story deserves to be told, Waterfield adds, since the achievements of the Successors were as remarkable as -- and more enduring than -- those of Alexander himself. Thus, they consolidated Alexander the Great's unwieldy conquests, established political and social order over his multiracial and multicultural empire, and laid the ground work for the remarkable flourishing of culture that was the hallmark of the Hellenistic World (323-31 BC).Waterfield begins his work by rightly blaming Alexander himself for much of the chaos and conflict that arose following his death in 323 BC. "In fact," Waterfield comments, "Alexander had left things in a mess, with no guaranteed succession, no administration in place suitable for such an enormous empire, and huge untamed areas both bordering and within his `empire.'" Additionally, the great conqueror, via his autocratic behavior and ruthless purges, had sown division and fear among his "Companions." The latter -- in traditional Macedonian fashion -- should have acted as an advisory council and thus as a "check" to the king's power; now, being a "yes-man" was a prerequisite for advancement in Alexander's court.When Alexander the Great died unexpectedly at age 32, due to natural causes or poison, it was left to his Successors (or Diadochoi in Greek) to determine the succession to the throne, consolidate his unwieldy conquests, and establish a functioning bureaucracy for the world's largest empire. Fortunately, the Successors to Alexander were "up to the task." In fact, Justin, a historian from the third century AD, wrote that "never before that time did Macedon, or indeed any other nation, produce so rich a crop of brilliant men, men who had been picked out with such care, first by Philip and by Alexander, that they seemed chosen less as comrades in arms than as successors to the throne." Such a "pool" of talented and ambitious men, however, also meant that the struggle for control of Alexander's empire would be a violent, bloody, and protracted affair.Over the next 40 years, therefore, each of the Diadochoi made a bid for absolute mastery of the greatest "spoils" of the ancient world: Alexander's fabulously wealthy empire, which stretched from Greece in the West to India in the East - an area wider in length than the continental United States! What followed was an epic struggle for power worthy of a Hollywood film. "These years, 323-281 BC," writes Waterfield, "were filled with high adventure, intrigue, passion, assassinations, dynastic marriages, treachery, shifting alliances, and mass slaughter on battlefield after battlefield." When the "dust of battle" finally cleared, Alexander's far-flung empire had been divided irreparably among three dynastic families: the Ptolemies in Greater Egypt, the Antigonids in Macedon and Greece, and the Seleucids in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iran. Each of these dynastic empires would ultimately be conquered by and absorbed into the expansive empire of Rome.The Age of the Successors, however, was not one solely of unrelenting warfare and political turmoil. In his narrative, Waterfield includes a number of "asides" devoted to the cultural achievements and social developments of this remarkable era, one which established the framework for the new Hellenistic Age. The Ptolemies, for example, founded the famous library and museum in Alexandria, which became the undisputed cultural center in the Hellenistic world for over 300 years. In fact, royal patronage of the arts and sciences served as the main catalyst for the era's impressive cultural output. Both socially and politically, women gained much greater power and influence than ever was true in Classical Greece. Cleopatra VII, the last of the Ptolemaic pharaohs of Egypt, is a well-known example of the new heights women could achieve. Additionally, the Successors - whether intended or not - began the remarkable "fusion" of Greek and Near Eastern cultures that characterized all aspects of the Hellenistic Age. Out of this complex and hybrid matrix arose Christianity, which, in many aspects, continued the more positive legacy of Alexander the Great and his remarkable Successors to the throne.

Great book; took a while to find my bearings and will probably have to read it again, but well researched and fascinating.

Much better than game of thrones

For people who are interested to learn how Alexander the Great's empire has been fiercely disputed amongst his Successors, this is an excellent book to read, albeit very confusing at times due to the multiple intrigues, schemes, treacheries, murders, coups, etc. that the players have all displayed in profusion during this period.One can only startle at the fact these things still happen nowadays around the world, but in various degrees of intensity depending on what parts of the world you live in. The lesson that I draw from this history is that the world has not changed much in the last two thousand years. Changing sides, allies or friends is so common in world politics since the beginning of recorded history.

Even with a rudimentary knowledge of Alexander and his conquests, I found Dividing the spoils a very interesting and easy to read book. The maps in the front of the book were very helpful, along with a glossary of all the pertinent characters, and genealogies to help understand all the relations between characters.

For a book that is very well researched and historically accurate, the entertainment value is very high. It strikes one to notice how the diadochi’s personalities had their fates diverge with the death of what kept them together.Excellent read!