Alexander the Great Failure The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire by John D. Grainger
Alexander the Great Failure The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire by John D. Grainger brings a more nuanced perspective to the subject of one of the most famous conquers in history. Grainger argues that Alexander’s posthumous glory is heavily unwarranted, and after reading his book I am inclined to agree with Grainger.
Alexander the Great Failure examines the historical record to highlight that although Alexander was an accomplished military commander, but that was the only area of his reign that he truly succeeded in.
Alexander only performed the bare minimum amount of governing both in Macedon and in his Asian conquests. He appointed satrap governors in the Persian style, but this did not solve the long term problem of creating an effective government administration for the whole of his empire. After securing the throne in Macedon all that ever occupied Alexander was his next military campaign. These campaigns are where all of his energies went, not the actual ruling of the three continent spanning empire he created.
To make matters worse he never bothered to see to the problem of his succession, even as he was on his deathbed. His only legitimate heir had not even been born yet, and he did not pass the reins of power to one of his subordinates. This failure to provide for a successor was particularly glaring when Grainger explains the problems is royal successions in Macedon.
Grainger does an excellent job of providing all of the necessary background of the land of Macedon and the life of Alexander’s father Philip II. Both of these subjects are needed in order to comprehend the difficulties that Alexander and his empire faced.
Succession in Macedon in particular was rarely if ever smooth. The typical result was armed revolt and civil war between rival claimants to the throne, and often foreign invasions while the kingdom tore itself apart. Alexander never bothered to find a way to prevent this, and this is exactly what happened when he died.
Grainger also go to lengths to describe the events of the next several decades and centuries after Alexander’s death. It is easier to see where the fault lines in the Macedonian Empire where when the reader is shown where the empire fractured.
One thing that Grainger could have done better was related to the problems of administrations. He states that Alexander’s empire and the Macedonian Kingdom before lacked a strong administrative and bureaucratic structure to support them, but Grainger does not give any examples of what this system might need to look like. He explains that Macedon was a personal monarchy, as the king dealt with the majority of problems himself. However, the reader is left to wonder what kind of administration would have worked better. Grainger does mention some administrations of certain Successors being more effective, but he provides few details about them.
Alexander the Great Failure does not set out to say that there was nothing that Alexander did that was successful. The man did conquer the Persian Empire and beyond, but Grainger shows that this did not mean that Alexander was a success everywhere or even anywhere else. The empire that he largely ignored after he conquered it was fragile and Alexander did nothing to try and preserve it.
