For my third book review, I’m returning to Antiquity with a review of Adrian Goldsworthy’s book about two Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander: Kings and Conquerors. This is the first audiobook that I’ve reviewed on the site, so this may be a little different from other reviews I have done and will continue to do. Why do I say that? Well, I just started listening to audiobooks in earnest within the last few months and I find it a little challenging to retain as much of the information, or take notes on the information, compared to when I read a physical book. This is because I listen to audiobooks and podcasts when I run, when I drive or when I’m running errands. So, if I make mistakes here or am otherwise not as detailed as I am in other reviews, my bad. I’ll try to do better the next time around.
Regarding the book itself, I thoroughly enjoyed this one and recommend it to all. Goldsworthy does a masterful job setting the scene of Ancient Greece and Macedonia at the time that Philip came to power. This gives the reader a good sense of the world in which Philip and Alexander found themselves, starting with Macedon and the major Greek power-brokers. Goldsworthy’s decision to take the time to set the historical table, if you will, seemed like a sidequest at first, but doing so allowed the reader, or listener in my case, to understand what Philip had to do to build his kingdom. Spoilers – it wasn’t easy. While I try to not idolize historical figures, it’s hard not to be impressed by what Philip was able to accomplish. He took a part of Greece that was looked down upon by its neighbors and turned it into a major player with a professional and disciplined fighting force.
Goldsworthy doesn’t stop setting the scene in Greece; you get an excellent idea of the challenges that Alexander faced as he tried to place his seal on the Persian Empire he conquered. There is a lot of time devoted to the cultural differences between the Greeks and the Persians that I came across in passing while listening to podcasts. I didn’t fully appreciate those differences until I listened to this book (and probably would’ve appreciated better had I read a physical copy of it). Goldsworthy also does an excellent job analyzing the historical record regarding this time period and pointing out reliability issues with primary and secondary sources. That discussion made me realize that there’s a good argument that we should consider Alexander’s famous last words as a narrative invention, albeit a very good one.
One thing that I particularly enjoyed about the book is that it is about both Philip and Alexander as opposed to just Alexander. When I did my research for the first episode of the podcast, which is about Alexander the Great, I found myself being drawn to stories about Philip more so than Alexander. Without judging or idolizing either historical figure, I always find myself more interested in Philip because he built the system that Alexander was able to use so masterfully. While I’m not saying that Philip is more historically significant than Alexander, I am saying that I personally enjoy learning more about Philip. I always find stories about builders and creators to be compelling and Philip really built his kingdom into something that was different from other Greek cities around him. Again, I’m not saying that one is more worthy of study than the other, but I am saying that, in many respects, you can’t understand Alexander if you don’t understand Philip. So, pairing these two together was a good choice by Goldsworthy.
Another thing that I found interesting was the discussion about how Alexander’s troops not crossing the Hyphasis probably wasn’t that big of a deal at the time and that it only became significant because of Alexander’s death not too long after that. You also get the sense that Alexander wasn’t as unstable as he is portrayed in movies or television (think Oliver Stone’s Alexander) towards the end of his life. Rather, you get a sense that this was a man who had been through a lot, may have had some measure of a traumatic brain injury (if not several) and was understandably stressed from running a large empire and conducting campaign after campaign. Stressed out? Certainly. Mentally unstable and bordering on insane? Probably not.
Goldsworthy also doesn’t just focus on the two kings’ military history. Rather, he spends a lot of time detailing Philip’s diplomatic successes as well as Alexander’s attempt to integrate the Greeks and the Persians. So, while there is a lot of military history to get through, that’s not all that the book is about. All things considered, this is a pretty comprehensive history.
As I wrap up this review, I want to mention one other reason that this book is worth reading. When I read a bad history book, that book can turn me off from the subject matter. But, if I like the book, it can cause me to read other books about the same time period. And this book, fortunately, has done the latter. Goldsworthy’s book has me wanting to read more about that period of history, so I’ve added a few primary and older secondary sources to the to-read list.
Those are my thoughts on the book. Let me know what you think about what I think in the comments, on Bluesky, on Mastodon, on Reddit, or on Instagram.
And never forget that The Classical Antiquity Sidequest is a podcast without end.
The Classical Antiquity Sidequest 