W. W. Tarn (1869–1957)

Tarn is, of course, great. But he's only for experienced Alexander-explorers. Many of his facts and virtually all of his interpretation is now either overturned or in serious doubt. At this point, he's more useful as an example of what can go wrong in the study of Alexander--and history generally--and for his writing than for the content itself.

W. W. Tarn was one of the eminent ancient historians prior to the 1940s.

Biographers are often a product of their times, and so is Tarn. Sexuality in ancient times was perceived differently than it was around WWII or even today. Alexander had sexual relationships with both men and women, with what seems his most enduring relationship a homosexual one with Hephaestion. Yet Tarn fails to acknowledge this relationship, possibly because in his era homosexuality was viewed with disgust and show more dishonor. Yet this homosexual relationship is part of Alexander's story, and one that Tarn neglects and even hides.

The map furnished at the back of the book is quite good, showing the ancient world across two pages with Alexander's route of conquest superimposed. The map also has a useful index separate from that of the book's text.

There are better biographies of Alexander, but Tarn's map is still useful. show less

This is the first of two books, written by a University of Cambridge professor, about Alexander the Great. Volume I (this one) takes a general look at Alexander’s life in narrative format, whereas Volume II “contains a number of special studies.”

Volume I has been separated into three parts:

The Conquest of Persia
The Conquest of the Far East
Personality, Policy and Aims
The first two are a general historical look at what Alexander did from the time he succeeded his father on the throne to show more the time of his death. The third part looks at what the author believes Alexander’s aims and personality were and Alexander’s influence on the world.

The Response
The part that I most enjoyed was the third part (Personality, Policy and Aims), as it took a look at Alexander’s actions and through what he did extrapolated his personality. This shows how he was a mind ahead of his time – practically reinventing the financial model of countries, showed how he (unlike a lot of rulers at his time) had both compassion for people and respect for their culture. It shows his grasp of strategy, through the way that he could successfully face each opponent, even when he had to change his approach due to tactics he had never seen armies use before. He could unite all those who would follow him, and inspired many people throughout centuries to come.

It’s doubtful how successful he would’ve remained had he lived past his 33 years of age – if he would have been able to maintain peace as well as he was at conquering his world – but in those 12 years he was king, he certainly accomplished more than most people could ever claim to!

My favourite passage in the book is as follows, and takes a look at some of the personality that Tarn believes Alexander had:

… there was another side, which cannot be overlooked; a romanticism which was kindled by the exploits of Achilles and Heracles, Semiramis and Cyrus, and burst into flame under the glamour of the East; something too of the mystic which set him apart from others as the man whom Ammon had counseled, and who possibly felt himself an instrument of the gods. From this side of him, obscurely as we see it, sprang what was probably the most important thing about him: he was a great dreamer. To be mystical and intensely practical, to dream greatly and to do greatly, is not given to many men; it is this combination which gives Alexander his place apart in history.

I would have been interested to see what the author would have said about Alexander if this was a more contemporary book – especially how he felt in regards to the suppositions that Alexander liked guys. And I wish Bucephalus was mentioned more than “so this is where his horse died.” Also, it would’ve been a HUGE benefit to have more than just one map at the end of this book, especially when talking about Alexander’s treks across deserts… But those are really the only three things that I didn’t really like about this book. So, I suppose if that’s all I have to complain about, then this was a pretty good book.

The Bottom Line
Not going to be reading the second volume, but did enjoy this. Will be keeping it, and would recommend it to people who wanted to know more about Alexander’s conquering of Asia, Persia, etc. show less

The period beginning with Alexander was an extended squabble over the spoils of his achievement. The conflict led to a high level of innovation, and well-paid positions for soldiers and engineers. Tarn has collected and analyzed a good deal of evidence covering the changes in soldierly technology. A pretty good book for the non-classically trained.