Kazan. Kazan University Publishing House. 1976. 520 pp. Circulation 5500. Price 1 rub. 80 kopecks.
The life and conquests of Alexander the Great have been the object of research of new generations for 23 centuries: historiography about Alexander, which began, in fact, during the life of the commander, is represented in our era by a huge scientific literature. The attention of Soviet scholars was mainly focused on the disclosure of the prerequisites for the Greek-Macedonian conquests and the socio-economic problems of Hellenism. Only a few articles, a popular book by S. I. Kovalev1, and separate sections of generalizing works are devoted to Alexander's personality, conquests, and civic activities in the East. Thus, the monograph of the head of the Department of General History of Kazan University, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. S. Shofman, is the first in Russian science consolidated work on the Eastern policy of Alexander the Great. In the concept of "eastern policy", the author includes a set of Alexander's activities carried out during the conquest of the East, among them, first of all, the organization of the administration of the conquered territories. This policy was not an end in itself, but a means to achieve the main goal - world domination (p. 511).
The book opens with an overview of sources. In ancient historiography about Alexander, the author distinguishes two directions: anti-Alexandrian (Curtius was his representative) and apologetic (Plutarch and Arrian). Turning to the historiography of the question, A. S. Shofman criticizes the idealistic views of bourgeois scientists, while emphasizing the fact that the idealization of Alexander's personality is widespread in the West. The author believes that the only exceptions to this prevailing exaltation of Alexander in bourgeois historiography are the views of two historians - B. G. Niebuhr and K. Y. Belokha (p. 19). Thus, K. Y. Belokh sharply opposed the fetishization of Alexander and belittled the role of the Macedonian commander's personality. 2 A. S. Shofman rightly notes the need for a comprehensive assessment of Alexander's activities (p. 37).
According to the author's idea, the presentation of the Eastern campaigns does not have a self-sufficient meaning and represents a historical background for considering the main problem of the study - Eastern politics
1 S. I. Kovalev. Alexander the Great, L. 1937.
2 K. J. Beloch. Griechische Geschichte. Bd. IV. В. -Leipzig. 1927, S. 290 - 291.
page 180
Alexandra. Nevertheless, this section (part 1) is an important independent part of the monograph. The military and political aspects of the Macedonian king's activities are inextricably linked. A. S. Shofman painted a vivid picture of Alexander's campaign to the East. Although the events of a purely military nature are already covered in some detail, the author managed to find interesting angles that allow developing the analysis of this topic. Thus, he convincingly showed the fallacy of widespread ideas about the "ease" of Alexander's conquest of the western half of the Persian empire. Alexander won victories over the Persians in hard and stubborn battles (see, for example, p. 77).
The central place in the monograph is occupied by the characteristics of Alexander's innovations in the East, the study of his idea of world domination, attempts to create a social base for himself in the conquered countries (Part 2). The author examines in detail the question of the deification of the tsar's personality, the problem of resistance of the Macedonians to the policy of their ruler.
A. S. Shofman rightly believes that in the conditions of the fragility of Alexander's conquests in the East, the old system of government with the former satrapies was mainly preserved in the former Persian possessions and in Persia itself, but adapted, however, to the needs of Macedonian rule. The author also traces the changes in the political organization of Alexander's state, which were only outlined during his lifetime and were fully implemented under his successors-Hellenistic monarchs. A. S. Shofman concludes that "the foundations of the future bureaucratic system of Hellenistic states were laid already under Alexander" (p.188). The author highlights the town-planning activities of the tsar. Many scientists in the West, in fact, agree with the opinion of I. G. Droysen about it as a deeply thought-out measure with the aim of merging the West and the East. They write about the brilliant plans of Alexander aimed at" uniting the peoples", at creating Alexandria of Egypt as a commercial and administrative center of the Mediterranean,"a bridge between East and West". Other scientists, for example, Tarn, see urban planning policy mainly as a cultural mission and believe that the new cities should have become centers of Greek culture. Economic reasons are also put forward (patronage of trade) and military-strategic (control over communications, a barrier against nomads, etc.). A. S. Shofman rejects the idea of a pre-planned, deeply thought-out urban development plan by Alexander: "In fact, the construction of cities met the challenges of today, the military, administrative and economic needs of the time" (p. 206). According to the author, the cities founded by Alexander were primarily of military and administrative importance, with the exception of Alexandria of Egypt, which solved economic and strategic tasks at the same time. This policy of creating new cities was a policy of world power, strengthening the power of the conquerors in the conquered countries, creating military fortifications in them (pp. 206-207).
The researcher objects to the view that the source of Alexander's deification lies in the tsar's religiosity and superstition (p. 223). The author has revealed the fallacy of the view that Alexander aspired to his own deification even before the campaign to Asia, at the beginning of his activity (p.223). In fact, the widespread deification of the tsar in the East, unknown to Hellenic practice, began to be carried out later, during the Eastern policy of Alexander, who sought world domination and strengthening the unity of his empire. A. S. Shofman convincingly showed that the idealized program attributed to Alexander by a number of Western scientists for the establishment of "universal peace and brotherhood" of people is not reflected in the sources. The adoption of Oriental customs, the wearing of the luxurious clothing of Persian kings, the diadems, the introduction of palace etiquette, and the like were all aimed at strengthening Alexander's empire. Similarly, the marriages of the Persians and Macedonians were considered by Alexander as a measure to consolidate his power, and not as a step towards the "merger of peoples" (p. 245).
The author rejects the view that Alexander's plans for world domination were formed even before the campaign or at their initial stage, and that the idea of world domination clearly appears in the tsar only at the end of the campaigns to India.
page 181
253). Only later, in Central Asia, did Alexander make plans to conquer the world, and the campaign to India was a step in this direction (p. 261).
Considering the struggle in the army regarding the attitude to Alexander's policy, A. S. Shofman focuses primarily on the plot of Philotas, the son of Parmenion. Here he accepts the point of view of S. I. Kovalev, according to which the conspiracy was connected with opposition to the Eastern customs and the Eastern policy of the tsar. The same reasons, says A. S. Shofman, were also at the root of the conflict between Alexander and Clitus, the "conspiracy of pages" and the Callisthenes affair (p.372). The author explains the estrangement between the Macedonian governor Antipater and the tsar both by the former's dissatisfaction with the Eastern policy that belittled Macedonia, and by the tsar's reprisals against representatives of the Macedonian nobility (p.392). The researcher believes that the hints contained in the sources about the violent death of Alexander, in which Antipater and his sons were involved, are sufficiently justified (pp. 402-403).
In bourgeois historiography, the study of the anti-Macedonian movement of the conquered peoples was not given due attention. The first monographic study of this problem is given in a peer-reviewed book (Part 3). A. S. Shofman identifies the regions of the Mediterranean, Central Asia, and the Far Eastern satrapies. The author came to conclusions about the grand scale of anti-Macedonian demonstrations in almost all corners of Alexander's power. To suppress them in Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, Persia and India itself, the king had to make great efforts, and, in fact, these actions were not completely defeated; only because of the fragmentation, lack of connection between the anti-Macedonian uprisings in the Balkans, in the Near and Middle East, they did not lead to success. Of particular interest is the anti-Macedonian movement in Central Asia - the first major mass action against foreign invaders on the territory of our country. As A. S. Shofman notes, the study of the struggle of the peoples of Central Asia against the Macedonian invasion is mainly due to Russian scientists. Western historians, starting with Droysen, whose sympathies are only on the side of Alexander, misjudge the personality and role of the leader of the Spitamen movement (p. 446). The monograph describes in detail the course of the stubborn three-year struggle of the population of Central Asia against the invaders. The author emphasizes the role of the Spitamen revolt, which, although defeated, shattered the foundations of Alexander's monarchy and contributed to the success of the liberation movement almost a century later. A. S. Shofman notes that "Soviet scientists managed not only to illuminate the entire dynamics of the anti-Macedonian struggle in Central Asian lands, but also to reveal its socio-economic prerequisites" (p. 447).
Extensive research work led A. S. Shofman to a number of important conclusions, which are summarized in the "Conclusion". Here the author gives a comprehensive assessment of the historical significance of Alexander's campaigns, the consequences of his Eastern policy, reveals its internal weakness, and points out the unrealizability of Alexander's world-autocratic aspirations.
Not all the provisions of the monograph are indisputable. Thus, it is unlikely that the use of cavalry to pursue a defeated enemy was an important tactical innovation of Alexander (p. 100)- this use of cavalry was known even to the Assyrians. Rightly considering that Alexander's victories were given in heavy battles, the author in the story of the battle of Gavgamelakh does not fully clarify the absurdity of information in sources about the incommensurability of losses of the belligerents. Without objecting to the conclusion about the reasons for Alexander's urban planning activity (p.206), we emphasize that this activity reflected the transition of the slave - owning economy to a higher level, the penetration of socio-economic forms of antiquity into the countries of the East. It is hardly possible to agree with the author's opinion that the increase in slavery and wealth transferred from the East to the Balkans contributed to the strengthening of the economic foundations of Macedonia - it was experiencing an economic crisis after the conquests.
The book lacks the name and geographical indexes that are so necessary in works of this kind, and there are no maps of Alexander's campaigns.
In general, the reviewed book is a notable phenomenon in the Soviet historiography of antiquity. It will undoubtedly contribute to the further development of one of the most interesting problems of ancient history.
page 182
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, ELIB.ORG.IN is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Preserving the Indian heritage |