What do you think?
Rate this book
Darius in the Shadow of Alexander by Pierre Briant
The last of Cyrus the Great s dynastic inheritors and the legendary enemy of Alexander the Great, Darius III ruled over a Persian Empire that stretched from the Mediterranean to the Indus River. Yet, despite being the most powerful king of his time, Darius remains an obscure figure.As Pierre Briant explains in the first book ever devoted to the historical memory of Darius III, the little that is known of him comes primarily from Greek and Roman sources, which often present him in an unflattering light, as a decadent Oriental who lacked the masculine virtues of his Western adversaries. Influenced by the "Alexander Romance" as they are, even the medieval Persian sources are not free of harsh prejudices against the king D r, whom they deemed deficient in the traditional kingly virtues. Ancient Classical accounts construct a man who is in every respect Alexander s opposite feeble-minded, militarily inept, addicted to pleasure, and vain. When Darius s wife and children are captured by Alexander s forces at the Battle of Issos, Darius is ready to ransom his entire kingdom to save them a devoted husband and father, perhaps, but a weak king.While Darius seems doomed to be a footnote in the chronicle of Alexander s conquests, in one respect it is Darius who has the last laugh. For after Darius s defeat in 331 BCE, Alexander is described by historians as becoming ever more like his vanquished a Darius-like sybarite prone to unmanly excess."
Hardcover
First published November 3, 2014
8 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Briant
52 books32 followersPierre Briant (born September 30, 1940 in Angers) is a French Iranologist, Professor of History and Civilization of the Achaemenid World and the Empire of Alexander the Great at the Collège de France (1999 onwards), Doctor Honoris Causa at the University of Chicago,
He studied History at the University of Poitiers (1960–1965), and reached his doctorat d'État in 1972.
His works deal mainly with the Achaemenid Empire, and related matters as Alexander the Great or the Hellenistic Era.
Known for: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire
He studied History at the University of Poitiers (1960–1965), and reached his doctorat d'État in 1972.
His works deal mainly with the Achaemenid Empire, and related matters as Alexander the Great or the Hellenistic Era.
Known for: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 9, 2021
پیربریان استاد و پژوهشگر تاریخ در کتاب داریوش در سایه اسکندر کوشیده است سرگذشت و سرنوشت داریوش سوم آخرین پادشاه هخامنشی را در مواجهه با اسکندر مقدونی ، یکی از برجسته ترین سرداران تاریخ بیان کند ، او در این کتاب با جمع آوری و استفاده از منابع فارسی ، یونانی و رومی در زمینه های تاریخی ، هنری و ادبی به دنبال ترسیم چهره داریوش سوم است .
در غیاب منابع مستند و بی طرف بریان وظیفه بسیار سختی داشته ، منابع رومی و یونانی مانند هرودوت و گزنفون چنان چهره درخشان و نورانی از اسکندر و فتوحات او و همچنین از نبوغ و جوانمردی او ساخته اند که داریوش در برابر آن هیچ فروغی نداشته است و مورخان کم شمار ایرانی به دلیل عدم تمایل به یاد آوری شکست سنگین ایران ، یادی از داریوش سوم نکرده اند و به همین دلیل زیاده گویی های مورخان یونانی و رومی در سرتاسر جهان از گذشته تا هم اکنون رواج پیدا کرده و گویی تبدیل به یک حقیقت محض شده است ، حال آنکه در جا به جای آثار آنان نفرت و کینه از شرق و آنچه آنها بربرها خوانده اند وجود دارد .
تاریخ را فاتحان می نویسند ، از این رو دست مورخین یونانی یا غربی کاملا در ساختن سیمایی قهرمان وار از اسکندر باز بوده ، جوانی نابغه با رحم و مروت و خصوصیات پهلوانی ، که بدون ترس بر لشکر بی شمار داریوش می تازد . در مقابل هم داریوش سوم ، بدون ویژگی های رهبری ، با لباس و زره مجلل و همواره آماده گریختن ، با سیمایی که ترس در آن موج می زند .
داریوش در سایه اسکندر را نمی توان بیوگرافی داریوش سوم دانست ، که اصولا سند یا نوشته ای به جا مانده از زمان هخامنشیان موجود نیست ، نویسنده تلاش کرده تا با بررسی حوادث زمان اسکندر و یا اسکندرنامه ها هر چند عامیانه یا افسانه مانند باشد چهره داریوش را مجسم کند ، او در این مسیر سخت و مشکل از سکه های هخامنشی و نقش نوشته ها را بررسی کرده و حتی به ادبیات بسیار غنی ایران و آثاری مانند شاهنامه فردوسی و اسکندر نامه نظامی گنجوی هم پرداخته است .
منابع یونانی و رومی داوری کاملا یک طرفه ای نسبت به اسکندر داشته اند ، از دیدگاه آنان اسکندر نابغه ای نظامی ایست که از غرب متمدن به مصاف بربرها آمده ، همانند سربازها زندگی کرده و مانند آنها هم می جنگد ، اسکندر علاوه بر جنگیدن درر صف اول ، رهبری و سازماندهی لشکرش را هم بر عهده دارد .
اما از طرف دیگر داریوش ، لباسی سرتا پا زرین پوشیده و از دور و در کجاوه ای نبرد را زیر نظر دارد ، او با زنان و حرمسرای خود به جنگ آمده و ارتش او چابک نیست ، داریوش در هر لحظه آماده گریز از میدان است . جالب آنکه داریوش سوم در نزد مورخان ایرانی نیز چهره ای بهتر نداشته ، او به دلیل اشتباهات در پادشاهی و یا حکومت نکردن بنا بر قواعد سنتی مورد خیانت اطرافیان و نزدیکان خویش قرار می گیرد ، آنها شکست داریوش را مستقیما در خیانت نزدیکان و رفتار تفرقه آمیز داریوش می دانند و نه توانایی های اسکندر .
مورخان ایرانی و عرب بر خلاف مورخان یونانی و رومی نظر مساعدی نسبت به اسکندر نداشته اند ، منابع ساسانی او را به خاطر آتش زدن تخت جمشید و سیه روزی که بر سر ایران آورد شدیدا محکوم کرده اند ، به همین گونه خصلت پهلوانی اسکندر را هم نادیده گرفته اند . او جنگجویی ایست که از تفرقه در سپاه ایران استفاده کرده و داریوش را مغلوب خود ساخته است .
بریان با فروتنی اقرار می کند که کتاب او به معلومات خواننده در مورد داریوش سوم چیز چندانی اضافه نمی کند ، تنها برخی از احتمالات موجود را اندکی پر رنگ تر می کند . نویسنده دو روی متفاوت رفتار فاتح و بازنده را نشان داده ، او به دنبال قضاوت داریوش سوم نبوده است تنها کوشیده بخشی از تاریخ را بدون جهت گیری بیان کند ، کاری که در آن موفق بوده است .
در غیاب منابع مستند و بی طرف بریان وظیفه بسیار سختی داشته ، منابع رومی و یونانی مانند هرودوت و گزنفون چنان چهره درخشان و نورانی از اسکندر و فتوحات او و همچنین از نبوغ و جوانمردی او ساخته اند که داریوش در برابر آن هیچ فروغی نداشته است و مورخان کم شمار ایرانی به دلیل عدم تمایل به یاد آوری شکست سنگین ایران ، یادی از داریوش سوم نکرده اند و به همین دلیل زیاده گویی های مورخان یونانی و رومی در سرتاسر جهان از گذشته تا هم اکنون رواج پیدا کرده و گویی تبدیل به یک حقیقت محض شده است ، حال آنکه در جا به جای آثار آنان نفرت و کینه از شرق و آنچه آنها بربرها خوانده اند وجود دارد .
تاریخ را فاتحان می نویسند ، از این رو دست مورخین یونانی یا غربی کاملا در ساختن سیمایی قهرمان وار از اسکندر باز بوده ، جوانی نابغه با رحم و مروت و خصوصیات پهلوانی ، که بدون ترس بر لشکر بی شمار داریوش می تازد . در مقابل هم داریوش سوم ، بدون ویژگی های رهبری ، با لباس و زره مجلل و همواره آماده گریختن ، با سیمایی که ترس در آن موج می زند .
داریوش در سایه اسکندر را نمی توان بیوگرافی داریوش سوم دانست ، که اصولا سند یا نوشته ای به جا مانده از زمان هخامنشیان موجود نیست ، نویسنده تلاش کرده تا با بررسی حوادث زمان اسکندر و یا اسکندرنامه ها هر چند عامیانه یا افسانه مانند باشد چهره داریوش را مجسم کند ، او در این مسیر سخت و مشکل از سکه های هخامنشی و نقش نوشته ها را بررسی کرده و حتی به ادبیات بسیار غنی ایران و آثاری مانند شاهنامه فردوسی و اسکندر نامه نظامی گنجوی هم پرداخته است .
منابع یونانی و رومی داوری کاملا یک طرفه ای نسبت به اسکندر داشته اند ، از دیدگاه آنان اسکندر نابغه ای نظامی ایست که از غرب متمدن به مصاف بربرها آمده ، همانند سربازها زندگی کرده و مانند آنها هم می جنگد ، اسکندر علاوه بر جنگیدن درر صف اول ، رهبری و سازماندهی لشکرش را هم بر عهده دارد .
اما از طرف دیگر داریوش ، لباسی سرتا پا زرین پوشیده و از دور و در کجاوه ای نبرد را زیر نظر دارد ، او با زنان و حرمسرای خود به جنگ آمده و ارتش او چابک نیست ، داریوش در هر لحظه آماده گریز از میدان است . جالب آنکه داریوش سوم در نزد مورخان ایرانی نیز چهره ای بهتر نداشته ، او به دلیل اشتباهات در پادشاهی و یا حکومت نکردن بنا بر قواعد سنتی مورد خیانت اطرافیان و نزدیکان خویش قرار می گیرد ، آنها شکست داریوش را مستقیما در خیانت نزدیکان و رفتار تفرقه آمیز داریوش می دانند و نه توانایی های اسکندر .
مورخان ایرانی و عرب بر خلاف مورخان یونانی و رومی نظر مساعدی نسبت به اسکندر نداشته اند ، منابع ساسانی او را به خاطر آتش زدن تخت جمشید و سیه روزی که بر سر ایران آورد شدیدا محکوم کرده اند ، به همین گونه خصلت پهلوانی اسکندر را هم نادیده گرفته اند . او جنگجویی ایست که از تفرقه در سپاه ایران استفاده کرده و داریوش را مغلوب خود ساخته است .
بریان با فروتنی اقرار می کند که کتاب او به معلومات خواننده در مورد داریوش سوم چیز چندانی اضافه نمی کند ، تنها برخی از احتمالات موجود را اندکی پر رنگ تر می کند . نویسنده دو روی متفاوت رفتار فاتح و بازنده را نشان داده ، او به دنبال قضاوت داریوش سوم نبوده است تنها کوشیده بخشی از تاریخ را بدون جهت گیری بیان کند ، کاری که در آن موفق بوده است .
March 2, 2017
History, they say – whoever “they” are – is written by the victors.
Well, not exactly. Our age of revisionism and conspiracy theories, coupled with the unending vacuum that is the Internet, encourages us to consider just how victorious – or at least good – the victors really were and, thus, just how wronged the losers might’ve been.
“The Battle of Gaugamela” (18th-century ivory) shows Darius III quitting the field in the decisive battle for the Persian Empire, Oct. 1 331 B.C. But was Darius a coward? Or did the centrality of the Persian king to his empire force him to quit the field of battle and preserve himself – something his Western critics failed to grasp?
“The Battle of Gaugamela” (18th-century ivory) shows Darius III quitting the field in the decisive battle for the Persian Empire, Oct. 1 331 B.C. But was Darius a coward? Or did the centrality of the Persian king to his empire force him to quit the field of battle and preserve himself – something his Western critics failed to grasp?
That’s the backdrop of Pierre Briant’s “Darius in the Shadow of Alexander” (Harvard University Press, 579 pages, $39.95), newly translated by Jane Marie Todd and published in the United States after first appearing in French 12 years ago. In this book, Briant – emeritus professor of the Achaemenid world and Alexander’s empire at the Collège de France in Paris – explores how and why Darius III, who lost an empire to Alexander the Great, came to “haunt the realm of historical oblivion.” It is not, for obvious reasons, a biography. But it is a fascinating, extensively researched study of how branding can be as important as any battle.
“Alexander Covers the Body of Darius With his Cloak,” an engraving by Bernhard Rode (1769-70). Alexander would avenge Darius’ murder at the hands of the traitorous satrap Bessus.
“Alexander Covers the Body of Darius With his Cloak,” an engraving by Bernhard Rode (1769-70). Alexander would avenge Darius’ murder at the hands of the traitorous satrap Bessus.
Briant’s book arrives at a time when Persia (modern-day Iran) is very much in the news due to the controversial yet productive nuclear disarmament talks and Iran’s role in fighting ISIS – which some see as a play for greater power in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel’s recent discovery of coins bearing the likeness of Alexander go a long way to explaining why the Greeks – who knew how to spin – won and the Persians lost.
But first a bit of background: Some 130 years before the birth of Alexander in neighboring Macedon in July of 356 B.C., the Persians invaded Greece and burnt the Acropolis atop Athens, destroying its temples and worshipers. It was Greece’s 9/11 moment.
Alexander’s father – Philip II, king of powerful, rough-hewn Macedon and hegemon, or protector, of the more refined, resentful Greek city-states – seized upon Persian atrocity in his plans to invade Persia, liberating Greek nationals along its Mediterranean coast. But Philip – who loved much but none-too-well – was assassinated by a former male lover undoubtedly at the instigation of his ex-wife (and Alexander’s mother), Olympias. At 20, Alexander found himself heir not only to Macedon and the hegemony of the Greek city-states but to his mother’s dynastic ambitions and his father’s Persian dreams.
Already he had distinguished himself at the Battle of Chaeronea, in which Philip had established his hegemony over Greece. He had inherited a superbly trained fighting force, along with his mother’s fair-haired beauty and romantic nature. He had been educated by no less than the philosopher Aristotle to view the Persians as “barbarians” (a Greek word) but also to think for himself.
More than that, he had the genius’ ability to see time in space and a battlefield like a chessboard, anticipating and reacting with lightning speed, inspiring his men with his charisma and leadership to do the same. Even his enemies – and they have been legion – have been forced to admit that Alexander’s probably the greatest field commander the world has ever seen.
So when he took an army of about 35,000 (roughly the size of the New York City Police Department) across the Hellespont in 334 B.C. to confront an army that may have been as large as 250,000, he wasn’t really concerned about the odds. They had Alexander, he told his men. And he had his hopes.
And what did the Persians have? Well, for one thing, a first-rate culture. This was a world of astronomy and mathematics, legendarily terraced gardens and ziggurats, peacocks, parasols (a Persian invention) and pomegranates. It’s a world I conjure briefly in my novel “Water Music” – the first in my series “The Games Men Play” – in the story arc of Iraqi-American tennis player Tariq Alí Iskandar, whose love affair and rivalry with Greek player Alexandros Vyranos becomes a metaphor for the eternal struggle between East and West.
The Persian Empire also had a particular centrality that the clannish, mobile Macedonians and the Greek city-states did not possess. When Darius quit the field at the Battle of Issus, leaving his family to Alexander’s legendary mercy, he wasn’t turning tail but rather preserving his place as head of state and a style of leadership that left the fighting to his generals. This was captured in the 2004 Oliver Stone film “Alexander,” which conflated the battles of the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela. (It’s a mystery why Briant, who had no problem drawing on pop culture works like Mary Renault’s Alexander trilogy, saw no need to update the English version with an analysis of Stone’s sympathetic treatment of Darius.)
Like Stone, Briant depicts Darius as a decent leader and loving husband and father who was ill-equipped for a new, proactive kind of leadership.
And for a succession of Western historians– writing first for the Roman emperors and then the kings of Europe, who saw themselves as Alexander’s spiritual heirs.
“It is altogether clear that the Persian king’s conduct is described and conceived as a function of ethical norms for which Alexander serves as the sole paragon,” Briant writes. “The Great King (Darius) cannot acquire or hold on to the devotion of his intimates; he lacks the mark of a great strategist, namely, an understanding of situations; he does not fight on the front lines; he does not take cities by storm; and his body is not covered in glorious scars. Within the logic of history thus reconstituted and transmitted, he remains fundamentally ‘the Darius who was defeated by Alexander.’”
But it wasn’t just Western history and literature that conspired to confine Darius to the backwater. “The Shahnameh,” the 11th century Persian “Book of Kings” recast Alexander as a king of Persian descent, proving that if you can’t beat ’em, you can reinvent ’em.
Narrative, which drives public perception, is only one part of branding. Words go hand-in-hand with images, and here again Darius fell short, thanks to the conventions of Persian culture.
“It is not particular kings who are represented in (the empire’s ceremonial capital) Persepolis and elsewhere but rather kingship in all its glory, accompanied by impersonal and intangible attributes….In short, we must resign ourselves: there is no Persian portrait of Darius III.”
But there are plenty of Alexander portraits that have solidified his image as a new kind of leader – beautiful, brilliant, vigorous, youthful, sexy even. As Nigel Spivey notes in “How Art Made the World: A Journey to the Origins of Human Creativity” (Basic Books, 2005), Alexander allowed only three men to capture his carefully controlled image – the painter Apelles, the sculptor Lysippus and the gem-carver Pyrgoteles. That image is still so resonant that when those coins were discovered in Israel, there was no doubt as to whom the face belonged.
Darius had his revenge, Briant writes. The more Alexander conquered, the deeper he explored the Persian empire, the more this rigorous Westerner was conquered by the seemingly louche, luxurious East. It’s the thesis of Guy MacLean Rogers’ “Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness” (Random House, 2004).
Close but no cigar. Yes, Alexander adopted Persian dress and customs, developed a close relationship with Darius’ mother, Sisygambis; and took one of his daughters, Stateira, as a wife. But people don’t change. They become more of what they are. Had death not taken him a month shy of his 33rd birthday in his capital of Babylon, he would’ve moved on to Arabia and West to fledgling Rome. Truth is, for all his, the West’s and the East’s meticulous branding of him, we’ll never completely understand what motivated Alexander.
In a sense, he, too, is a shadow king.
Resposted from The Games Men Play: http://www.thegamesmenplay.com/blog/2...
Well, not exactly. Our age of revisionism and conspiracy theories, coupled with the unending vacuum that is the Internet, encourages us to consider just how victorious – or at least good – the victors really were and, thus, just how wronged the losers might’ve been.
“The Battle of Gaugamela” (18th-century ivory) shows Darius III quitting the field in the decisive battle for the Persian Empire, Oct. 1 331 B.C. But was Darius a coward? Or did the centrality of the Persian king to his empire force him to quit the field of battle and preserve himself – something his Western critics failed to grasp?
“The Battle of Gaugamela” (18th-century ivory) shows Darius III quitting the field in the decisive battle for the Persian Empire, Oct. 1 331 B.C. But was Darius a coward? Or did the centrality of the Persian king to his empire force him to quit the field of battle and preserve himself – something his Western critics failed to grasp?
That’s the backdrop of Pierre Briant’s “Darius in the Shadow of Alexander” (Harvard University Press, 579 pages, $39.95), newly translated by Jane Marie Todd and published in the United States after first appearing in French 12 years ago. In this book, Briant – emeritus professor of the Achaemenid world and Alexander’s empire at the Collège de France in Paris – explores how and why Darius III, who lost an empire to Alexander the Great, came to “haunt the realm of historical oblivion.” It is not, for obvious reasons, a biography. But it is a fascinating, extensively researched study of how branding can be as important as any battle.
“Alexander Covers the Body of Darius With his Cloak,” an engraving by Bernhard Rode (1769-70). Alexander would avenge Darius’ murder at the hands of the traitorous satrap Bessus.
“Alexander Covers the Body of Darius With his Cloak,” an engraving by Bernhard Rode (1769-70). Alexander would avenge Darius’ murder at the hands of the traitorous satrap Bessus.
Briant’s book arrives at a time when Persia (modern-day Iran) is very much in the news due to the controversial yet productive nuclear disarmament talks and Iran’s role in fighting ISIS – which some see as a play for greater power in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel’s recent discovery of coins bearing the likeness of Alexander go a long way to explaining why the Greeks – who knew how to spin – won and the Persians lost.
But first a bit of background: Some 130 years before the birth of Alexander in neighboring Macedon in July of 356 B.C., the Persians invaded Greece and burnt the Acropolis atop Athens, destroying its temples and worshipers. It was Greece’s 9/11 moment.
Alexander’s father – Philip II, king of powerful, rough-hewn Macedon and hegemon, or protector, of the more refined, resentful Greek city-states – seized upon Persian atrocity in his plans to invade Persia, liberating Greek nationals along its Mediterranean coast. But Philip – who loved much but none-too-well – was assassinated by a former male lover undoubtedly at the instigation of his ex-wife (and Alexander’s mother), Olympias. At 20, Alexander found himself heir not only to Macedon and the hegemony of the Greek city-states but to his mother’s dynastic ambitions and his father’s Persian dreams.
Already he had distinguished himself at the Battle of Chaeronea, in which Philip had established his hegemony over Greece. He had inherited a superbly trained fighting force, along with his mother’s fair-haired beauty and romantic nature. He had been educated by no less than the philosopher Aristotle to view the Persians as “barbarians” (a Greek word) but also to think for himself.
More than that, he had the genius’ ability to see time in space and a battlefield like a chessboard, anticipating and reacting with lightning speed, inspiring his men with his charisma and leadership to do the same. Even his enemies – and they have been legion – have been forced to admit that Alexander’s probably the greatest field commander the world has ever seen.
So when he took an army of about 35,000 (roughly the size of the New York City Police Department) across the Hellespont in 334 B.C. to confront an army that may have been as large as 250,000, he wasn’t really concerned about the odds. They had Alexander, he told his men. And he had his hopes.
And what did the Persians have? Well, for one thing, a first-rate culture. This was a world of astronomy and mathematics, legendarily terraced gardens and ziggurats, peacocks, parasols (a Persian invention) and pomegranates. It’s a world I conjure briefly in my novel “Water Music” – the first in my series “The Games Men Play” – in the story arc of Iraqi-American tennis player Tariq Alí Iskandar, whose love affair and rivalry with Greek player Alexandros Vyranos becomes a metaphor for the eternal struggle between East and West.
The Persian Empire also had a particular centrality that the clannish, mobile Macedonians and the Greek city-states did not possess. When Darius quit the field at the Battle of Issus, leaving his family to Alexander’s legendary mercy, he wasn’t turning tail but rather preserving his place as head of state and a style of leadership that left the fighting to his generals. This was captured in the 2004 Oliver Stone film “Alexander,” which conflated the battles of the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela. (It’s a mystery why Briant, who had no problem drawing on pop culture works like Mary Renault’s Alexander trilogy, saw no need to update the English version with an analysis of Stone’s sympathetic treatment of Darius.)
Like Stone, Briant depicts Darius as a decent leader and loving husband and father who was ill-equipped for a new, proactive kind of leadership.
And for a succession of Western historians– writing first for the Roman emperors and then the kings of Europe, who saw themselves as Alexander’s spiritual heirs.
“It is altogether clear that the Persian king’s conduct is described and conceived as a function of ethical norms for which Alexander serves as the sole paragon,” Briant writes. “The Great King (Darius) cannot acquire or hold on to the devotion of his intimates; he lacks the mark of a great strategist, namely, an understanding of situations; he does not fight on the front lines; he does not take cities by storm; and his body is not covered in glorious scars. Within the logic of history thus reconstituted and transmitted, he remains fundamentally ‘the Darius who was defeated by Alexander.’”
But it wasn’t just Western history and literature that conspired to confine Darius to the backwater. “The Shahnameh,” the 11th century Persian “Book of Kings” recast Alexander as a king of Persian descent, proving that if you can’t beat ’em, you can reinvent ’em.
Narrative, which drives public perception, is only one part of branding. Words go hand-in-hand with images, and here again Darius fell short, thanks to the conventions of Persian culture.
“It is not particular kings who are represented in (the empire’s ceremonial capital) Persepolis and elsewhere but rather kingship in all its glory, accompanied by impersonal and intangible attributes….In short, we must resign ourselves: there is no Persian portrait of Darius III.”
But there are plenty of Alexander portraits that have solidified his image as a new kind of leader – beautiful, brilliant, vigorous, youthful, sexy even. As Nigel Spivey notes in “How Art Made the World: A Journey to the Origins of Human Creativity” (Basic Books, 2005), Alexander allowed only three men to capture his carefully controlled image – the painter Apelles, the sculptor Lysippus and the gem-carver Pyrgoteles. That image is still so resonant that when those coins were discovered in Israel, there was no doubt as to whom the face belonged.
Darius had his revenge, Briant writes. The more Alexander conquered, the deeper he explored the Persian empire, the more this rigorous Westerner was conquered by the seemingly louche, luxurious East. It’s the thesis of Guy MacLean Rogers’ “Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness” (Random House, 2004).
Close but no cigar. Yes, Alexander adopted Persian dress and customs, developed a close relationship with Darius’ mother, Sisygambis; and took one of his daughters, Stateira, as a wife. But people don’t change. They become more of what they are. Had death not taken him a month shy of his 33rd birthday in his capital of Babylon, he would’ve moved on to Arabia and West to fledgling Rome. Truth is, for all his, the West’s and the East’s meticulous branding of him, we’ll never completely understand what motivated Alexander.
In a sense, he, too, is a shadow king.
Resposted from The Games Men Play: http://www.thegamesmenplay.com/blog/2...
January 31, 2019
This book’s full title is Darius in the Shadow of Alexander. I enjoyed the book, although it was rather slow in places and there really is not a lot we know about Darius. It is hard to read at times., but he is a person from history that I know little about. It would appear that little is really know about him historically.
It is certainly true that history is written by the victors. Certainly, the Greeks have bad mouthed Darius a lot, but you would think that there might possibly some Iranian or Persian sources available about Darius. The book is not an easy read and I kept thinking it might shed some light eventually on Darius, but it never seemed to get there.
There is one good book review on this Amazon Site by JPS. Jennifer Finn on Bryn Mawr Classical Review sounds like a scholar reviewing a scholarly work. She generally approves of this book. Her review is almost as hard to read and the book. But, what could I really expect? This favourite review site of mine of Good Reads seem to favour a review by Georgette Gouveia. This is a great review and it seems to be the only one on this site. Tom Holland also does a great review on the Spectator. It was hard to find good reviews. I had to search passed the first google page and this is unusual.
Since the author is French and the book was originally written in French, there is no English videos with the author or any English language discussion of the book in a video. There is an English Wikipedia entry for the author.
It is certainly true that history is written by the victors. Certainly, the Greeks have bad mouthed Darius a lot, but you would think that there might possibly some Iranian or Persian sources available about Darius. The book is not an easy read and I kept thinking it might shed some light eventually on Darius, but it never seemed to get there.
There is one good book review on this Amazon Site by JPS. Jennifer Finn on Bryn Mawr Classical Review sounds like a scholar reviewing a scholarly work. She generally approves of this book. Her review is almost as hard to read and the book. But, what could I really expect? This favourite review site of mine of Good Reads seem to favour a review by Georgette Gouveia. This is a great review and it seems to be the only one on this site. Tom Holland also does a great review on the Spectator. It was hard to find good reviews. I had to search passed the first google page and this is unusual.
Since the author is French and the book was originally written in French, there is no English videos with the author or any English language discussion of the book in a video. There is an English Wikipedia entry for the author.
August 27, 2023
This is a difficult but also a very good read. Due to the paucity of original sources, Briant is forced to use and analyze second and third sources. This, along with the fact that this is a translated version, combines to make this a challenge to read. It is worthwhile nevertheless. A full discussion is held as to whether Darius is brave or cowardly and slightly less on whether Alexander is a brave leader or if he takes unreasonable risks. Well done and a worthwhile undertaking.
August 8, 2025
تراژدی در تراژدی
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews