Guy Maclean Rogers

I am no scholar of ancient history, so I can't comment too much on accuracy, completeness, etc. This was a decent introduction to the career of Alexander - it basically marches along with Alexander and just lists all the battles etc.

Alongside the basic narrative of facts, the author pursues a counter-revisionist project. Sure, Alexander the Great was really great. But even great people have warts. Get over it! Hmmm, actually, we are fed more a line about greatness being great. Zeus likes the best, the great. Alexander was no Woodrow Wilson. Forget about equality, brotherhood... hmmm, we don't really hear at all about freedom. But greatness, yeah. Why shouldn't the best be on top, where they belong?

The author is basically thumbing his nose at those revisionists who compare Alexander to Hitler and Stalin. Alexander was no Hitler! Well, of course, Hitler had big warts and every great person has at least a few little warts. So there is at least some tiny resemblance. Get over it. Woodrow Wilson had warts. Oooo this author got his PhD at Princeton! It would be delightful to hear... I bet he is now a staunch defender even of the great Woodrow Wilson with his warts, since certain left wing student factions at Princeton have chosen to denigrate, uh, criticize, whatever, put down, Wilson because of his, hmmm, maybe medium sized warts. Wilson was no Hitler!

I have no doubt that the catalog of facts here is plenty accurate. The counter-revisionist arguments at least create a little bit of narrative drive. But here is just no depth. We don't hear who it is that compares Alexander to Hitler. Did such revisionists actually equate Alexander with Hitler, or just point out some similarities in certain facets? This book could have been a lot more interesting if it had really used an in-depth discussion of the Alexander debate as a motor. How about like the sherry and cheese after the colloquium, get into the personalities, the name calling, etc. This book could have been a lot more fun!… (mere)

Those seeking concrete information about the activities and the results of the mysteries of Artemis celebrated in Ephesos will be disappointed by this book. The author takes a great deal of time analyzing the lists of religious officials and speculating on what the changes in number, addition of other offices, family background of the officers and so forth mean in the political context of the cult. It is not until the end of the book that he makes any attempt to describe the religious meaning of the activities rather than the political and economic motivations of participants. The reader learns that we know nothing other than the bare facts that animals were sacrificed and the entrails read, incense was burned, processions moved from one location to another, songs were sung, dances were performed. Since these actions are common to nearly every cult of the Greek religion there is only the mythic basis to set Ephesos apart. Ephesos claimed to be the birthplace of Artemis and Apollo, the place where the Kouretes masked the labor of Leto from Hera by banging their shields. Rogers interprets this as a foundation for a relationship of mutual need between the gods and humans. Humans need the gods for protection, food, etc., but in this myth human aid was required to establish the second generation on Olympus. According to Rogers the mysteries were no longer celebrated after the Artemision collapsed and burned in the earthquake of 262 and was looted shortly thereafter by Goths. Since Artemis had proven unable to protect her own temple and treasure the populace was not willing to rebuild and re-establish her worship there. This book is very detailed and not easy to read. There seems to be much repetition and back tracking, with the same essential points being presented several times in different words. At least a quarter of the volume consists of bibliography and endnotes.… (mere)