The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great

The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great by Stephen English

When I received the book I opened it with mixed feelings. While not bad, the two previous books from Pen & Sword that I reviewed for UNRV (Great Battles of the Hellenistic World by Joseph Pietrykowski and Hellenistic and Roman Naval Warfare 336BC - 31BC by J. D. Grainger) were not what I expected. Thus opening The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great I was full of doubts but soon began to be re-assured:the book, third in a series which I have not previously read, is the publication of a thesis by Stephen English which was written under the direction of a reputed scholar, thus guaranteeing a certain degree of quality to the work...

...read the full review of The Field Campaigns of Alexander the Great by Stephen English

Most books on Alexander are complete crap. Here's how to find out if it's a good book: check the index to see if it covers the following:

*Ai Khanum (Alexandria-on-the-Oxus)

*Merv (Alexandria/Antiochia in Margiana)

If they don't get a mention then don't buy the book--simple!

I would not be so categorical, for it all depends on the outlook of the book. By the way a book on the city's foundation, the choices made, the strategy behind the foundations, could be a great source for understanding Alexander's strategies.

I would not be so categorical, for it all depends on the outlook of the book. By the way a book on the city's foundation, the choices made, the strategy behind the foundations, could be a great source for understanding Alexander's strategies.

So you guys would be happy to purchase a chronological book on Ancient Egypt that fails to mention the capital of the 14th Dynasty, or a chronological book on the Roman Republic that fails to mention the creation of the Hispanic provinces in 197 BC or even book on Tudor England that fails to mention London? For book on such a short period in time (Alexander the Great), failure to mention the cities he founded should mean that any such book is confined to the scrap-heap, no? No doubt such books miss the mark on many other fundamental facts concerning this period, too. You don't want to end up with something like the Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt that is obviously written and compiled by unenthusiastic authors; were they simply trying to get through an exam in order to gain an extra qualification for their CV? Very few books out there, unfortunately, are as good as say Rome Enters the Greek East by A. Eckstein. I did find 1 good book on Alexander, but that's about it.

...For book on such a short period in time (Alexander the Great), failure to mention the cities he founded should mean that any such book is confined to the scrap-heap, no? ...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that BUT everything has a context and it really does depend what the intent of a book is whether it should be confined to the scrap heap in the way you propose.

A book dealing with a single city founded by Alexander and its immediate confines doesn't in my view need to mention all of the other cities he either renamed or founded from scratch - Wikipedia cites at least 16 in this category.

If on the other hand it is intended as a chronological study of Alexander including ALL his movements and city foundations then I would have expected all such cities to be at least mentioned.