Greek Guide V2
Latin Guide V2

They aren’t final versions, but I feel quite proud of them. I have not yet included a bibliography in the guides themselves, but here are links to the books I referenced.

Latin:
- Wheelock’s Latin
- Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar

Greek:
- Introduction to Attic Greek
- Reading Greek: Grammar and Exercises

Superman: Earth One

Superman has always been a favorite character of mine. I grew up watching the cartoon show in the early 90s and even had an old VHS from the ancient animated series that I received as a gift from some obscure relative. Truth, justice, and the American way. As corny as that might sound, it is something that reverberates within me; particularly since my waking American revival within the past few years as I’ve learned more about what went into the primordial soup of the United States. It’s been unfortunate then that for the past several years, Superman hasn’t had a good run of stories. There certainly has been exceptions such as Morrison’s All-star Superman and Waid’s Superman: Birthright, but the monthlies have been weak. So when it was announced that J. Michael Straczynski (JMS) was coming to DC to write Superman there was a lot of buzz. When the Earth One concept was announced and that JMS was writing the Superman book for it, there was a lot of excitement. After a year of development, what followed was a disappointing, albeit satisfactory product.

The Earth One series of books take advantage of the DC’s concept of the multiverse – ie. parallel universes. Although this was no different than their original Elseworlds products, a self-contained comic universe with continuity across books without all the baggage of earlier writings has its advantages. Marvel has done the same with its Ultimate series and J.J. Abhrams did something similar with his Star Trek. It allows the writers freedom when crafting their stories. So the idea of JMS being given the task of Superman for this fresh start seemed like an excellent choice. Although I have not read his work at Marvel, his reputation on his work for Thor made it seem like it would be a great match for Superman. His work on DC’s The Brave & the Bold, which I have read, was incredible. Things were looking up and reviews of advance copies by most media outlets were positive. However, reviews by dedicated comic book readers weren’t. So what happened? After all, the book sold remarkably well.

JMS attempted to make a characterization of Superman which would resonate more with readers of today. This is what offended most of the comic book aficionados. They described him as “emo”, which has a whole slew of connotations, and stated that his divergence from the Superman we know was too far for comfort. In the Earth One book, Clark Kent is twenty and fresh out of community college and unsure of what he wants from life when he travels to Metropolis – even resisting the obvious conclusion of his journey. In other versions, he was in his mid-twenties having traveled the world and gotten a university degree in journalism; a confident man from Smallville who hid behind the clumsy “Metropolis Clark” to conceal his identity. It was quite startling and it took me by surprise when I read it. However, it took me a second read to get it.

What JMS did is what has been a trend in comics for the past thirty or so years. I understand it, but it can still be frustrating. He’s trying to make Superman more relatable while still referencing his super nature. This Earth One Clark Kent is the renaissance man of previous versions, using his skills to achieve nearly anything earthly in his search for a comfortable job to take care of his widowed mother. Yet, he is a loner. He recognizes that by donning the mantle of a superhero, he will isolate himself completely from humanity even more than he is now. On my first read, I didn’t think too much of it. On my second, it clicked because I recognized that this Clark didn’t have the childhood friends of Lana Lang and Pete Ross or even the Legion of Super-heroes and Lex Luthor. No wonder he seemed distant and somewhat angst-ridden. JMS has written someone who is an alien not just in his origins, but in his interactions. His aversion to serving mankind only seems natural due to his inability to feel welcomed around other people. That he eventually comes around forms a nice character arc that many writers have trouble achieving. This Clark Kents ends in a different spot from where he began.

So, despite my qualms with a trend toward realism (or aptly “grounding”) of such a character and his origin, chalk one up for JMS.

There are a number of other things that JMS did well. His Jimmy Olsen is quite spectacularly fun for the time we see him. Rather than being Superman’s Pal who is more enthusiasm rather than skill and always getting into trouble, this Olsen is a confident, daredevil photographer. The Earth One Perry White and Lois Lane are familiar and welcomed characters, as are Ma and Pa Kent. Finally, the condition of The Daily Planet as a financially struggling newspaper fit well with today – fulfilling the goal of modernizing the tale of Superman – although I fear it might end up dating the story badly in the years to come. I also am intrigued by the idea of different star types and how they might affect Superman as alluded to by the antagonist. JMS seems to have a long-term idea of where to go with this series. Chalk a few more points for JMS.

So where did he go wrong?

I already mentioned his presentation of Clark Kent, which was not accepted by many critics. I’m inclined to side with them, but I’m willing to give it a pass due to how JMS got to that point. My main issue is that this graphic novel is just another origin story, which has been done before and done better. It fits with what he was trying to do for laying Earth One groundwork, but it wasn’t particularly necessary. Even if it just had to be done, the impetus for Clark Kent becoming Superman was his parents rather than his personal experiences and knowledge of himself like it was with Waid’s Birthright or more recently Geoff John’s Superman: Secret Origin. This makes the whole ordeal forced and not natural. Furthermore, this actually works counter to JMS’s interest in crafting mythos for the reader.

One of the things about myth is that sometimes all the details are not present, which works for creating interest in the character (eg. Wolverine, The Minnesota Tribe, Boba Fett). Everyone knows the beginnings of Superman as is, but even for this new version, I can’t help but feel all those pages were a bit of a waste. For an epic, beginning in medias res might have been preferable. Maybe even skipping the origins altogether and getting right to the conflict being faced should have been considered. That’s one of the many reasons why All-star Superman succeeded. As a consequence of focusing on an origin story, the antagonist suffers and seems flat despite the obvious potential.

An uninspiring villain is an all too common occurrence and most obviously observed in comic book movies. A story wherein a new villain is introduced to the audience while the protagonist is in some other conflict invariably ends up weaker for it. Take for example the Iron Man movies. The first was carried by Robert Downey Jr. because of his acting skills and screen presence compensating for a weak villain (even though Jeff Bridges did a great job). There wasn’t much time to develop the villain because he was cookie-cutter and room had to be made for Tony Stark’s origin. In the second movie, we saw Stark fighting against his own personal demons and a new, underdeveloped villain. Two antagonists and it suffered as a result. Conversely, take a look at Nolan’s Dark Knight where the character of Batman was established and Heath Ledger was given ample screen time to run wild with his Joker. Unquestionable success.

Superman: Earth One falls into this same pit. While the fight sequence is solid, the new villain makes little impact because of his lack of development. This is a shame since there was clearly a lot of potential and I actually hope something similar is done in the monthly book. Regardless, even though the world is saved, with a flat antagonist the climax is underwhelming. Or maybe the threat wasn’t bombastic and grandiose enough. When I think of a comic series such as The Authority, I wonder whether a grander adventure wouldn’t have been better for a new Superman instead of what we had here. Essentially, a more fantastical story instead of a “realistic” one: a more fun story instead of a somber one. One reviewer stated that this book seems like an unconscious reaction to Morrison’s All-star Superman and I can see how that might be the case, but it’s weaker for it.

As for the artwork, Shane Davis’ pencils and details are done to a very high quality. They fit the book and I like the minimal redesign to Superman’s costume. Oddly though, I enjoyed his work more on the monthlies he did such as Superman/Batman and JLA. Still, Davis did a good job and in time he could be considered one of the best of the industries once his skills mature a bit more.

To conclude, Superman: Earth One is a flawed, but successful story. Its shortcomings lie in the fact that as an origin story it vastly limits itself leading to retreading old paths and a poorly fleshed out antagonist. This new take on The Man of Steel is interesting and internally consistent, but lacks urgency and intensity and scope. A sequel has been fast-tracked already (which has had consequences for JMS’s work on monthly books) and I’m curious to see where it will go. My hope is that it will be an improvement on this first book. JMS has shown himself to be an excellent story teller with previous works and so my hope may not be misplaced.

For someone my age — born in the mid-80s — Kansas has always been just Kansas: a fly-over state, deeply conservative, and irritatingly self-righteous… and that’s just to start. This contrasts (at least the conservative part) with where Kansas was 100 years ago or more. I think many of us who took US history and paid at least a little attention know of the charismatic, radical abolitionist John Brown and his uprising in the years leading up to the Civil War. In the early 20th century Kansas was a hotbed of the socialist activity many of its current citizens would recoil at. Hell, Superman was raised in Smallville, Kansas and a champion of socialism as envisioned by two Jewish men in the early 20 century. In fact, up until about 1991 Kansas was a left-leaning state.

This is actually incredibly hard to reconcile with the current political climate. Even when the majority of the electorate was voting Republican, the overall legislation of Kansas was to the left. Taxes were slightly higher than the national average, but state services were some of the best in the country; particularly education. With the coming of the Summer of Mercy in 1991 — a push by anti-abortion groups — Kansas fell prey to a wedge-issue of the Culture Wars. Indeed, Kansas would be a text book case of this.

I’m going to hold off on breaking down the book and save it for readers to enjoy. And although it seems to not be, the book is quite well-balanced, which is best seen at the end. The main issue is the electorate switching from voting for economic issues to more nebulous morality issues. Economics still play its role, but it’s been inversed in this odd, Bizarro-like twist and hitched on to the Culture Wars debate. The result has been the emergence of depressing ghost towns and increasing poverty due to the deteriorating financial health of individuals. But what is most shocking is that while this book was published in 2004, it’s just as relevant as ever.

With the current emergence of the “Tea Party” in this 2010 election cycle and many of the extremely odd candidates, What’s the Matter with Kansas? serves as just a much a primer in current political thought now as it did six years ago. One could even extend it then to sixteen years ago with the Republican up swell in 1994. I must also add how striking it is to read about someone such as Dr. George Tiller knowing that about a year-and-a-half ago he was murdered by a radical anti-abortionist. And as personal anecdote, to show that this book’s relevance does extend beyond Kansas itself, having been born and raised in Illinois, I have seen a neighboring family with Tea Party signs up in their lawn — a family wherein the father is now a retired fireman collecting his pension, the mother a retired teacher collecting her pension, with grandparents on social security and medicare, and with one son having gone to a public university. Mind-blowing.

I’m tempted to continue on into discussion of Frank’s accurate treatment of the Culture Wars, but I think that is best left to another post. I think I’ll just close with stating that What’s the Matter with Kansas? is a highly enjoyable, quick read that is a important today as it was six years ago. If only it hadn’t taken me so long to read it.

1. Many Republicans and people on the right say some of the most shockingly dumb things that could be said. And what is worse is that many of their supporters eat it up. This is not a hard and fast description, but it’s pretty damn accurate. A whole book could easily be written documenting America’s infatuation with the “gut” instead of the head and shunning higher education and critical thinking while demonizing their opponents.

2. The Left and Democrats seem completely incapable of defending themselves and deconstructing the arguments of their opponents. The Left has its idiots as well, but they are not nearly as loud.

As it stands, Democrats are in a well-known tight spot this year. The midterm elections of a new president are known to be difficult for the party in power and history shows that. Combine this fact that it is the Democrats in power in a terrible economy, who lack a spine, and the Republicans, who say whatever the hell they want regardless of the truth, and it seems that there is going to be a significant number of seats changing hands. But why should this be?

If you’ve followed the goings-on in the political world you are well aware of the Tea Party. This over-inflated, nebulous political group is incredibly ridiculous. They bounce back and forth on their stances, are amazingly puerile, and clearly have no idea what they stand for. They create strawman arguments, look up to figures such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Dick Army. They are funded by incredibly conservative businessmen such as the Koch brothers. They also seek to rewrite the history of America and wish to elevate white people even higher than they are now (I’m white, for the record). They also lie… a lot.

All of these are things that the GOP leadership is carefully trying to rein in to their advantage — and yes, they lie as well. One of their favorite phrases is the, “American people think X,” even when polls show clearly the opposite. But that pales in comparison so many of the other statements that are said. Most recently has been Newt Gingrich’s jaw-dropping idiocy: What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.

That’s quite amazing, isn’t it? How does anyone respond to that? Either Gingrich is incredibly fucking stupid or incredibly wicked as this statement is only going to appeal to what is essentially the racist element of America. But this is just a single step in the Right’s march toward complete, resounding asininity. Most of the time, so many of their claims are really just attempts to ignite irrational emotions against their political opponents. When examined, they quickly break down and their fallacies should be seized upon by the Democrats. These are issues with great big targets painted on them. In fact, we should analyze one right now.

Take Sharron Angle. She’s running for Senate in Nevada, which also happens to be the same seat held by the Senate leader Harry Reid. I have my qualms with Reid (he’s a pussy, for one), but he’s done a fair amount of good; Angle is also batshit crazy. I’m sure anyone who has followed the news in the past several months is well aware of her radical statements. A good one is her call for “Second amendment remedies” if the election does not go her way. Recently she reaffirmed this view, which is incredibly scary. For someone who constantly invokes the US Constitution, she certainly seems to enjoy shitting all over it. Really, think about that:

If the country does not vote for the GOP and Tea Party, then those voters who did not get what they want should look to their guns. They should literally overturn a democratically decided election by force of arms. Granted, that isn’t likely to happen, although the idea that anyone should advocate this is clearly, clearly, clearly un-American. Reid should be jumping on this. He should be holding this up on a sign to highlight how dangerous she and her ilk are to the Union. The Right often yells about the Left being unAmerican, but if this doesn’t turn that oft-stated notion on its head, what does?

This is what I’ve been talking about when it comes to the easy hits that Democrats have when it comes to their opponents. It is an example such as the Angle comment that should be the reason why Democrats should be riding high still on their win in 2008. This does not even begin to bring up the fact that the Obama administration has actually achieved a number of legislative victories. Despite the somewhat watered-down nature of the bills they’ve passed, they have been generally successful and busy despite the political climate. To campaign on what they’ve accomplished should be obvious, but they aren’t doing it. To campaign on the sheer insanity of their opponents is easy and not even dirty, but they aren’t doing it. They’re doing the same thing they’ve done for so very long, but it’s those who are the most lionhearted that are doing so well where other, more centrist candidates are struggling. I sincerely hope that they do get their act together, because a slogan of not giving the keys back isn’t going to work.

You can’t make an argument on sucking less than the other guy.

Within the past decade — maybe 15 years — history has gotten a lot of attention. The ability to make documentaries and programs devoted to specific subjects and to put them all together on a few channels where there is a guaranteed audience means that a lot gets produced. Of course, that means a lot gets rehashed as well, and anyone who has watched The History Channel knows its penchant for World War II. Regardless, quite a bit of other eras get attention that otherwise would not due to their distance from modern memory. Unfortunately, the quality sucks.

This problem of quality isn’t limited to just The History Channel either (although it is perhaps the worst offender), but to almost all forms of such media. Recently I had the opportunity to view a show from a few years past called Time Commanders and broadcast by the BBC. It had a rotating caste of “historians” with the one constant being Dr. Aryeh Nusbacher, a military historian at Sandhurst. What drew my attention to it was that it utilized a slightly modified version of the Rome: Total War (RTW) engine to represent battles played between four contestants, who were generally clueless about the battles or history. RTW is the game that got me truly interested in history (Hellenistic specifically), despite its faults. So naturally, I was intrigued about the show.

I was disappointed.

Let me start by saying that I chose to sample one show based on a battle I was very familiar with: the Battle of Raphia, 217 BC. I felt that this would be the best way to gauge whether this show had any merit. I must admit that I am an amateur historian. My formal training is basically limited to my minor in Latin during my undergraduate education. However, I would like to think that I have done enough reading and spent enough time in history circles that my knowledge of Hellenistic history is adequate enough to provide commentary. If you’re a reader of this, that is up to you to decide, but I do feel that if pressed I could properly defend myself. What follows then is a host of comments I’ve made as I’ve watched the episode. Each entry is begun by the run time in the show at which I’ve noticed something that offends me. So without further ado, here we go:

· 0:00 So we get an introduction to the show, its concept, and the participants.

I hope you Google yourselves so you can read this. You suck.

· 3:35 Ah, the introduction of the experts (read: antagonists): Dr. Aryeh Nusbacher and Mark Urban

· 3:50 Short overview of what battle is being acted out today — Battle of Raphia — and the players’ role as the Ptolemies.

· 4:15 Fighting over Alexander’s Makedonian brand and legacy? Really? We still do this? First off, I think this is asinine because these were two well established dynasties interested in perpetuating their own myth for the sake of their authority, not Alexander’s. Secondly, Urban has just managed to completely ignore and gloss over the reason for the conflict of Koile-Syria: a reason which spawned no less than six fucking wars.

· 5:15 The military briefing.

This map represents borders that have never existed. Ever.

· 5:40 They just used a map that has completely fictional political boundaries. How do you mess that up? Didn’t anyone bother to check?

· 6:23 In previous battles the larger Seleukid elephants triumphed over the smaller Ptolemaic ones? Well, we could conjecture that from what actually happened at Raphia, but we don’t truly know because the records are slim. Nit-picking, I know, but I’m in a foul mood.

· 6:50 Misspelling the Latinized version of Seleukid. ¹

· 7:15 Ptolomaios IV resourceful and charasmatic? pft – more like a fatass who was easily manipulated by others.  It was his prime minister Sosibios who got the military organized and prepared to fight Antiochos. Who writes this stuff?

· 7:23 Nice to not mention all the native Egyptians that were drafted to swell the Ptolemaic phalanx, which would have been 20,000 less otherwise. ²

· 8:20 Participants begin to discuss their plan without really knowing what they’re doing, which is actually fine since that’s the point of the show.

· 9:00 Discussion of the terrain. Why is there just a randomly placed watchtower? Oh, is it to make the participants look more ridiculous?

· 10:57 Discussion begin on the participants’ army (Ptolemaic kingdom).

· 12:32 Despite their inclusion here, the Ptolemies did not have javelinmen present at Raphia. ³

· 12:45 Gloss over the description of the Galatians as “tribesmen” — not to mention that they are equipped terribly wrong in every imaginable sense. They are painted as Picts and armed with a round shield instead of the ovoid thureos. Granted there are going to be some little errors because this uses vanilla Rome: Total War (and an altered version of it at that), but dammit… didn’t anyone bother to check these things?

· 13:25 Nusbacher states horse breeding was the problem? That was why the Successors didn’t have the numbers that Alexander did? pft – twat historian. ⁴

Just all sorts of wrong here.

· 14:22 The Galatians lightly armed and with spears? Yeah… no. This should be large shields and swords and javelins.

· 14:40 Discussion on the Seleukid army.

· 15:20 Glossing over the idea of command and battle plans.⁵

· 15:37 Butchering of the pronunciation of argyraspides.

· 16:50 The deployment of the Seleukid army under Antiochos contains several errors in arrangements.

· 17:30 During some of this discussion, there has been a “scouting” attempt and so battle has been joined… sort of.

· 18:38 The “battle plan”, which is rather painful to watch. Here, the participants try to come up with an overall strategy. Then again, these participants have never played Rome: Total War nor are they familiar with Hellenistic warfare; so it’s excusable.

· 22:28 Again, that awful political map. Did none of these historians bother to check?

· 22:13 Troop deployment and continued debate by the participants as to their battle plan.

· 23:45 More asinine comments by the historians.

· 29:54 Holy crap, they actually properly stated that the Ptolemaic archers were Cretans.

· 31:10 Ah yes, the Ptolemaic javelinmen that weren’t actually there saving the day.

· 37:00 Butchered pronunciation of argyraspides again.

· 37:35 I just noticed that they’re using the wrong shields with the phalanx models for the argyraspides.

· 40:30 The “Post Mortem” section wherein the participants are told how poorly they performed. They still won, but it was certainly a close call.

· 41:15 Wow, Nusbacher just got the entire purpose of the Battle of Raphia wrong and ignored that it was a counterattack to Antiochos III’s campaign of the year before to take over the region — not an attempt to get closer to the Seleukid heartland as he states.

· 42:54 Now the historians attempt to show what really happened using a map and blocks representing units… with absolutely no context or history.

Insert thought bubble: I can't make violence interesting, so I'll use this gimmick. Yeah, that should work.

· 43:15 Nusbacher puts a bunch of blocks from the tactical map into a cocktail shaker and throws it… oi. At this point, Urban is so embarrassed by this that he attempts to pretend as though it didn’t happen.

· 43:35 And more errors: Ptolemy was with his cavalry when Antiochos charged, but slipped away to return to the rest of his army. What’s more, Urban ignored the discussion of something very key: what could have Antiochos been thinking when he charged?⁶

· 45:20 The credits role, the pain is done, and anyone who has watched this is a bit dumber for it. No information on the aftermath or what had happened to Antiochos and Ptolemy after their conflict only makes it all the worse.

So there you have it. A “quick” rundown. I suppose, in a sense, it is meaningless to those of you who have not seen the episode, let alone the show: you lack context. It is fairly easy to get your hands on it, but I doubt that would be actually necessary. There is just simply so much wrong. And that was the point of this.

These shows are lazy, poor attempts at education. They go for flash rather than accuracy, when one can actually do both. Seriously, you can. Most of my critiques wouldn’t take that long to explain — they really wouldn’t. Part of what helps is getting people who actually know the material. Turns out that Urban is not a Hellenistic historian. A look at his bibliography shows that he is much more interested in modern Britain — and like most Brits, likely intellectually masturbates to the memory of the glory days of Waterloo. Nusbacher, however, is clearly the worst offender here. As the prime historian for this program, he should have been checking the information over and over again to guarantee the accuracy of the show’s content. These mistakes are amateurish and give the impression that he got most of his information from layman publications rather than any serious scholarship. His role should have been acting as a bridge between the heady analyses of ancient historians by professors and the viewer at the end of the television. Instead, he simply regurgitates reductionist views decades out of date and spewing out bullet points with no context.

It’s just a travesty. And due to programs such as these, there is a widening gulf between academia and the public. Why would any historian want to be associated with this? Why would anyone want to deal with snobby historians? And that is not to mention what it had done to other fields of historical research by turning it all into a sort of pulp fiction.

Oh, and if you’re curious, I also checked out the episode focusing on the Battle of Tigranocerta between Rome and Tigranes of Armenia. Yeah, it’s just as bad.

Finally, as a postscript to all this, it could be mentioned that Dr. Aryeh Nusbacher had undergone a sex change a few years ago. He is now a Lynette and still teaching at Sandhurst as far as I can tell. That may explain why Time Commanders only had two seasons. This is not, however, to somehow add weight to my argument: it has no bearing in my mind as to her abilities. Only an asshat would think that. No, I only mention this so that if she ever Googles herself, she can still find this under her current name and know how much she sucks.

1. Latinized would be Seleucid; however, the show has spelled it as Selucid.
2. It is important to note here that the Ptolemaic victory at Raphia was due to these levied Egyptians. That the phalanx would have been nearly half the size would have certainly changed the outcome of the battle; however, this was somewhat a “deal with the devil”. In doing so to help bring victory, the Ptolemies finally gave the Egyptians what they needed to revolt: arms and training. This resulted in a thirty year rebellion in Upper Egypt with a pharaoh in opposition to the Makedonian government in Alexandreia. That seems like a pretty fucking big deal to me.
3. This does depend on how you want to interpret the Cretan mercenaries that were hired. A number of them were Neo-cretans, which is an odd term that shows up now and then. The Cretans were mostly known for their archery, civil wars, and piracy. You can build an argument for them being equipped with javelins, but I assure you that it is beyond the abilities of these two historians.
4. This is a common statement (or at least sentiment), which makes absolutely no sense. Most of the time historians make it seem as though Hellenistic monarchs had no idea what they were doing; that they willfully neglected raising cavalry. First and foremost, it should be said that the Seleukids maintained a large cavalry force. At Raphia it was smaller than it had been and what it would be, but this is thought to be due to the need to patrol the eastern provinces, which had just rebelled and were brought back into the fold just a few years previously as well as the concurrent campaign to regain control of central Asia Minor. Secondly, for the other Hellenistic kingdoms, there had been nearly fifty years of continuous warfare and before that Alexander’s campaign and his constant demand for reinforcements. Add to this the devastation brought by the Galatians to the countryside where the nobles would live and of course you’re going to have a decrease in available cavalry. Horses are pretty damn expensive to have around. Only the rich baronage could afford them. And when they’re all dead, that’s that.
5. This is something that doesn’t really get enough attention. We have to remember that it is difficult to get thousands of a people to suddenly stray from a battle plan at a moment’s notice. It should be said that there certainly was methods of communication on the field by way of a trumpets and banners; however, these are chaotic battle lines kilometers long with lots of noise and lots of dust. Generally, a plan is made and the units and their commanders stick to it and it is practically impossible to change in the midst of the action. Even if a general were to stay with his troops in hopes of adjusting to events in the battle, this isn’t an era of modern communication and he still isn’t going to get immediate results.
6. In truth, we don’t know what Antiochos actually thought, but it has been debated. Despite the few battles that he lost, he was not a fool. Hell, even Napoleon and Caesar lost battles. Bar-Kochva (one of the few Seleukid military historians) attributes Antiochos’ continual chase of the Ptolemaic cavalry as an attempt to capture or kill Ptolemy IV; not simply getting caught up in the moment of the chase. While it would have been better for Antiochos to return with his victorious cavalry and charge the rear of the Ptolemaic line, the potential benefits of dead Ptolemy were legion. Although Ptolemy’s minister ran the kingdom, a state without a head would be in utter chaos and ripe for the picking. After all, to quote the historian Polybios, “The mere statement of fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful.”

Image from the interior of A Princess of Mars. Also used for the cover of the original printing.

There are some books out there that just seem to hit all those beats in a way that makes it seem more familiar to you than it should. Readers of science-fiction will find that the case with A Princess of Mars, which makes sense because it was one of the first of the genre and has been an inspiration to writers ever since. It was also one of the first stories written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, who is known for his Tarzan series — which is even more prominent in the social consciousness — and would become the foundation of his Barsoom series of books. Originally published in 1912 as a serialization entitled Under the Moons of Mars, it follows the late-19th century Virginian gentleman John Carter in his adventure across the Red planet. The setting of the story is based upon Percival Lowell’s observations of Mars and so perceived features of the time figure into the story (e.g. the canals). This was furthered by the inclusion of artwork by Frank Schoonover, who is apparently well-known in his own right.

As an early science-fiction novel, the story elements seem almost more fantasy than they do science. John Carter’s appearance on Mars is sudden and only briefly described without any actual explanation — it just happens. The people are sufficiently otherworldly while still being familiar. Some of the technologies used by the native Martians rely on odd quirks of the natural world, of which I won’t spoil, to work. But I suppose that’s what really makes this science-fiction: that we see technology at work, which is replicable by anyone with the proper knowledge and dependent on machinery even though we as readers cannot fathom it; whereas magic just simply happens and is limited to certain people. Regardless, this never bothered me as a reader since the presentation is logically consistent and the story is just so damn fun.

A Princess of Mars is not a book with an overall greater message. It is not analogous to some great strife either contemporary with its publishing or now. It does not bring commentary on international politics or religion. It is, however, a story of action and adventure that ranges from Earth to Mars. It has a morality that flirts more with the heroes of Greek myth than it does with any modern conception of heroism. It does not try to hide what it is about. It does what it does, and it does it while being well written and fast-paced.

I suppose I could go on and on, but the story is actually quite short totaling under 200 pages minus the pictures. I would hate to spoil anything by continuing with a more in-depth analysis. I will just close with saying that this story is a must-read for sci-fi aficionados, but could be enjoyed by anyone seeking a pulp fiction thrill.

Grainger has described himself as a sort of independent agent in the field of history, who has a very large catalog of books he has written focusing on either Hellenistic history or more modern developments. While I have not read his works on, for example, Cromwell or Yorktown, I have done so on a number of his Hellenistic histories. Of particular note is his The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, which does a lot toward reopening discussion on a part of history that usually is glossed over. So when I saw that he had recently published a book addressing Alexander the Great, I was curious not so much by the title, but rather by the author.

Arguments that Alexander was not so “great” have been commonplace in college-level history courses for quite some time. My guess is that their origin is due to the end of the imperialist era post-WWII, rather than any actual analysis of history. Without a doubt, the man was – to use modern parlance – a dick. But that was not why he was considered great by the ancient world. He was considered great because he did what any person in that time would have thought heroic: he conquered one of the largest and more powerful states ever. Even his general path of destruction and slaughter was in tune with the definition of hero at the time, which is strikingly different from our modern definition. Grainger, instead takes a different approach to Alexander.

That the Makedonian empire fell apart fairly quickly after Alexander’s death is well known. Even when it could be considered whole, it certainly did not function well. The reasons for this, along with historical context and the importance of the work of Alexander’s father Philip II are the cruxes upon which Grainger bases his book. In fact, that is something that historians of Alexander seem to rarely do: give proper credit to Philip. The author’s argument is that it was Alexander’s failings not as a military leader, but as a leader of state that caused his empire to fall apart. He provides several examples of where Alexander went wrong, but does more than simply list them. Instead, he provides a greater reasoning for it all. For example:

That Alexander failed to provide an heir is well known. He did eventually, but it was so late into his reign that the child that was to be his legitimate heir was way too young for any of his ambitious generals to wait. Anyone can see this, but few would recognize that there was more history behind this, for in Makedonia, dynastic and succession crises were actually the norm. There was a continual cycle where a king would die; the royal family would fight for control of the throne; the victor would then have to pick up from the ashes; and by the time the country had finally recovered the cycle would repeat itself. It was because of this that it wasn’t until Philip and his comparatively long reign that Makedonia was able to place itself as a major regional power. Philip also saw the importance of ensuring that there would be a clear heir to prevent the erasure of all that he accomplished – something that most of Alexander’s successors saw as well. That Alexander did not makes his constant, puerile refusal to seriously consider the consequences of lacking an heir all the more damning in the face of his national history.

Unfortunately, an actual analysis of Alexander’s shortcomings as ruler only lasts for a few chapters.

Grainger’s book ends in 272 BC, which is roughly 50 years after Alexander’s death. This results in a rather tiring look at the history of the region concerned until it’s stabilization into the three major Hellenistic kingdoms. Although he does provide some interesting opinions and observations as well as chapters on what was happening in the greater world at the time (including the events in contemporary China), because of this broader focus, it seems that Grainger fails in sticking to defend his thesis: that of Alexander the great failure. Perhaps he felt that these decades were simply the long-reaching extent of Alexander’s policies and refusal to actually act as a ruler instead of just a military leader; that until the stabilizing in 272, it was simply a continuation of failure. In a way, that is certainly true, but it would seem to me that it could have been summed up in a single chapter; that the focus should have been on Alexander while he was alive. However, I don’t believe you could have gotten an entire book from that, and Grainger probably saw that as well.

There are other problems with the book as well. These tend to be a bit smaller in the grand scheme of things, but they are troublesome enough. The first of which is that Grainger (or his editors) cannot seem to decide whether they want to use transliterated Greek for the names of people or their Latinized equivalents. Here are some examples:

- Δημήτριος is transliterated as Demetrios, or Latinized as Demetrius
- Αντίοχος is transliterated as Antiochos, or Latinized as Antiochus
- Σέλευκος is transliterated as Seleukos, or Latinized as Seleucus

The Latinized forms are commonly used by historians, but the Greek transliterations are becoming more commonplace. Grainger, however, uses both forms not just within the same chapter, not just on the same page, but many times within the same paragraph.

The second problem that Grainger has is simply with his writing. I found that it was generally sloppy and as though it could have had another round of editing. His history is accurate, which it almost always is, but his writing in this book is really quite mediocre. There aren’t any glaring grammatical mistakes, but the sentence structure is awkward. There were some parts that took several readings to make sure I understood what had been written. That is never a good sign.

Overall, Alexander the Great Failure is not the best book you could read on the subject. It’s problems lay not in what it attempts to do, but in that it takes too long to do so and feels unfocused and unpolished. Critical analysis of Alexander should always be welcome as long as it not done by twats in the same vein as people like Ward Churchill. If you are looking for it in this book, however, you might find yourself in the wrong place. I would not go so far as to say that it is a failure itself, but it is hardly a success.

Within the last few years, after the abandonment of my original blogging enterprise, my friend Ben has shifted the theme of his blog mostly towards book reviews.  His “52-in-52″ a staple of his site.  In recent months and after reading numerous books between my time spent studying, I’ve been motivated by an urge to do something similar (although most likely without the regularity that he does).  I’m hoping that this time I find more success in it than I did in my first attempt.

And so, without further ado, it’s kind of nice to be back and all props to Ben for putting up with me again.