The Wars of Alexander's Successors 323-281 BC, Volume 2: Armies, Tactics and Battles [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

For what little evidence we have of this era in history, Roberts and Bennett do a good job of recreating battles during the time period. It's useful for anyone wanting to learn about how each of the battles (that have sufficient evidence behind them) were fought, and will expand just about everyone's knowledge of warfare in this time period. They talk about the composition of the armies, different tactical problems each commander faced, and each battle has a map to go along with it. It's definately a great tool to use. I also recommend reading the first Volume which details the campaigns also, since they aren't all mentioned here. About the only battles mentioned in depth are the Battles of Crannon, Paraetacene, Gabene, Gaza, Ipsus, and Eumenes' battle against Craterus. Volume I will talk about troop numbers, the politics of the era, and the campaigns themselves. Definately worth reading.

First posted on Amazon.co.uk on 26 January 2012

I basically agree with the two other reviewers of this volume who concluded by stating that the content of this volume could - and perhaps should - have been folded into the first volume, given that the book is somewhat slim (178 pages plus 6 pages of introduction). However, you can also argue that it is rather light on content. One of the reviewers in fact hints at that when mentioning thnat the naval aspects of the wars are covered in some 20 short pages. Compare this, for instance, with John Grainger's Hellenistic and Roman Naval Wars published in 2011 in the same collection and who devotes 56 pages to Hellenistic naval wars (after deducting the first 10 pages which are about Alexander's Naval War). Compare also with "The Age of Titans" - a whole book just published by Oxford University Press of the great hellenistic navies (250 pages plus another 100 or so for annexes, a glossary, notes, bibloigraphy and not counting numerous maps).

Much the same can be said about the other areas that Bennett and Roberts' book cover. Rather than an in-depth analysis of battles and tactics, it is in fact a selection of the most well known battles of the period, with a heavy emphasis on those fought by Eumenes. No battle taking place after Ipsos is covered, although we do have sources for at least some of them, even if they may be not as good. There is, however, a rather good chapter on "border wars" but even there, the narrative is somewhat sketchy. On sieges, however, the same kind of comment made for naval warfare can be made: only a dozen pages.

However, my main grip with this book is with the first chapter on "Soldiers and Armies" which, in itself, could also have been the topic of a whole book and which is covered in less than 30 pages. There are many problems with this chapter, starting with the others tendancy to confuse hoplite phalanxes with sarrissa phalanxes and superficially comparing the two with Roman legions to come up with the very conventional statement that the letter was more flexible, just because Polybios said so some 22 centuries ago. This is probably the worst chapter in the book. Just try pushing forward in closed order hoplite style with the small phalangite shield while carrying a 7.5 kg sarissa in both hands! It is physically impossible. Moreover, a number of statements surrounding Polybios are questionable or even wrong. First, the pro-Roman Achean was describing the phalanx of his days (around 220 to 167 BC) which may have differed in a number of respects with the phalanxes of the Successors (especially as we know the length of sarrissas varied from 15 feet to 21 feet). Second, we have evidence from the reign of Philip of Macedon, but also from the battles of both Ipsos and Magnesia in 190 against hte Romans which show that the pike phalanx was capable of turning to meet an ennemy attaccking its flank - so, not that rigid. Third, Polybios' "expertise" may be somewhat questionable; As an aristocrat, he was a horseman and it is unlikely that he ever fought in a phalanx (if he fought at all). In addition, he was a hostage in Rome for 17 years, as the book indicates, and as from the age of 35 in 168, so his command and practical experience would have been, at best, somewhat limited. Fourth, of course, he was very much pro-roman (andn, being an Achean, anti-macedonian), so not exactly an unbiased witnessed and probably not a very qualified one either...

There are a number of other elements missing from this book, in particular in the first chapter. Given the numbers of soldiers that they provided, a whole discussion on mercenaries, and in particular on Greek mercenaries, would have been valuable but is missing. Also, and more generally, a discussion on troop numbers, their origns and to what extent each of the main contenders had access to the various troop types, would also have been valuable, even for Macedon. For instance, the book mentions a couple of times that Macedon's manpower was reduced as a result of Alexander's campaigns and the Successor's wars but no attempt is even made to quantify it to begin with, let alone to estimate by how much it could have been reduced. Also, either in this first chapter, or in a specific chapter on its own, an examination of the resources available to each of the Kingdoms (both financial and economic, in particular wood, metals and shipyards) would have been valuable and is totally missing.

And the list could go on, and on, and on...

So, this would have made volume 1 worth four stars for me, if it had been added to it. As it is, and on its own, it's not worth more than three and I feel I am being rather generous here...