Worth the listen

This course teaches so much about Alexander of Macedon and what he brought the ancient world but also about how his influence changed history through to modern times.
Professor Harl’s enthusiasm comes through however his voice is hard to listen to at times.
Overall, I enjoyed this thought provoking account of the incredible man known as Alexander the Great.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Both educational and entertaining

Unexpectedly great ... the content was well paced and broken up into very listenable chunks. I appreciated the lecturer acknowledging other viewpoints on Alexander and commenting on them. The cultural differences of Macdonians vs. Greeks and how this differs from Hellenism was a good thread. The information that the Greeks were the mercenaries to everyone involved sheds a whole new light on this history.

My only quibble with the course was some pronunciation issues: particularly usage of soft 'c'.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Fantastic insight into the mind and world of Alexander

Always been fascinated by Alexander , and these lectures just tell you so much more about the great king , his generals , life in the ancient times and how everything came about . Then the ultimate demise and squabbling between the power greedy Macedonians that we’re left .
I’ve listened to all lectures twice now , Kenneth gives a very compelling story you just can’t stop listening to . Fantastic !

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

1 personne a trouvé cela utile

Detailed but biased

One of the more detailed books about Alexander, if you are into Alexander I will defiantly recommend it.

The main issue is the writer like many of other western writers, he is in love with alexander and greek culture in general, and that will make a lot of things being said in this book more like a story rather than historical facts.

The writer completely ignores Persian king Cyrus and how alexander obviously imitated him on many occasions.

The writer ignores the fact that alexander basically killed his mother and his family by not establishing a great imperial house as Persian kings did,

I was waiting for him to talk about why the empire fell after his death but Cyrus's empire did not fell after he died and comparing them (Persian empire and Alexander empire) but writer ditches anything negative about alexander quickly and gets to the next one.

The writer ignores the fact that there was a nice kind of peace in the world when Alexander started the war and this was by any means unprovoked war that disrupted the lives of many people for almost 50 years after Alexander's death.

The writer doesn't talk about various sacks/killings alexander did in many cities, the chapter about mutiny is very short and limited in context and story,
and many other things that he said that I think were biased and can be looked at dramatically different.

I think it's hilarious that western writers see themselves as Alexander and Greeks in general, but not Persians whereas most of what Greeks/Alexander did in Asia minor had been done before by Persians and it's just the copy of the copy of the copy meaning loving Alexander should be no different than loving Darius the 1st or Cyrus the great in terms of technological advancement and building a new world order.

He mentioned that Alexander "outclassed" Cyrus the great in any possible way. (I keep comparing Persians and alexander because they're pretty much the only people in history who controlled Iran and Turkey and Egypt together.
but I have an issue with him OUTCLASSING Persian kings both in military and governing.
1.Alexander fought with 1 Empire whereas Cyrus fought with 4 great empires
2.Alexander used Persian infrastructure whereas Cyrus and Darius created the infrastructure Alexander used
3.Persians ruled for 200 years whereas Alexander empire fell right after he died
4. Alexander Empire was a failure not only in terms of actual succession but even in terms of ruling the captured land in Iran and many other parts of the empire,
5. Writer did not mention and the Persian empire shrank after alexander, many satraps never came back and the huge borders of the Persian empire were never reinstated.

It looks to me that many people did not accept the greek rule, Alexander wanted the respect the satraps gave to Persian kings, I would say he never got the respect he wanted in Asia not from the people and not from the Persian aristocracy. (he got the respect but nowhere close to the level of Persian kings before him)
So I really think Alexander was more Cyrus wannabe rather than Achilles wannabe

I wanted him to explore the outclass claim he made more.

After all, it's a good book, I hope someone does this with less western biased but for now, this is one of the best Books about Alexander.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

1 personne a trouvé cela utile