Description:

About this item:

The definitive biography of the towering hero of the classical world: a fearless general, the conqueror of the Persians, and the visionary ruler of a vast empire—from one of the world's foremost scholars of ancient Greece.

“An amazingly solid, balanced, and evocative view of the man.” —The Washington Post Book World

Paul Cartledge gives us the most accessible, reliable, and intimate portrait of Alexander III of Macedon, the man himself, brilliantly evoking his remarkable political and military accomplishments, cutting through the myths to show why he was such a great leader.

He explores our endless obsession with Alexander and gives us insight into both his capacity for brutality and his sensitive grasp of international politics. As he brings Alexander vividly to life, Cartledge also captures his enduring impact on world history and culture.

Review

“May be the most accessible introduction in print.... An amazingly solid, balanced, and evocative view of the man.” —The Washington Post Book World

“Readable and engrossing.... Immediate, discursive, insightful, and highly engaging.” —Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

“Incisive and judicious.... What Cartledge does so well is explain the ancient world of Greeks and Persians.” —The Sunday Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer

About the Author

PAUL CARTLEDGE, professor of Greek history at the University of Cambridge, is the author of Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World, The Spartans, and The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

1
The Fame of Alexander

The world remembers Iskander and his deeds. Macedonia gave him its sceptre. Iskander was the son of Philip. His life was one long dream of glory. —Abai, ‘Iskander’, trans. Richard McKane

Inheriting at the age of twenty his father Philip’s position as master of the Greek world east of the Adriatic, Alexander had also, by the ripe old age of twenty-six, made himself master of the once mighty Persian Empire. By the time he was thirty he had taken his victorious arms to the limits of the known oikoumenê (inhabited world). Yet, before his thirty-third birthday he was dead. Small surprise, therefore, that he should have become a legend in his own lifetime. That his legend has spread so far and so wide – from Iceland to China – since his death in 323 bce is due very largely to the so-called Alexander Romance. This fabulous fiction took shape in Egypt, mostly some five or more centuries after Alexander’s death.

Thanks to this, and for other reasons too, of course, Alexander became in various countries and at various times a hero, a quasi-holy man, a Christian saint, a new Achilles, a philosopher, a scientist, a prophet and a visionary. But in antiquity he was most famous of all as a conqueror. Here is Arrian, writing in the early second century ce under the influence of the Roman emperor Trajan’s recent conquests in Parthia (in modern Iran); his Anabasis (‘March Up Country’) is our best ancient historical source on Alexander: ‘For my part I cannot determine with certainty what sort of plans Alexander had in mind, but none was small and petty, and he would not have stopped conquering even if he’d added Europe to Asia and the Britannic Islands to Europe . . .’ Arrian was quite properly alert to Alexander’s fame. But that comment on his last plans (see Chapter 10) is just the sort of measured and reflective remark that commends him to the modern critical historian and biographer of the world-conqueror. Apart, perhaps, from his casual remark about ‘the Britannic Islands’ – as if they were not part of ‘Europe’ . . .

A millennium and a half later, Shakespeare’s Hamlet comments rather irreverently in the graveyard scene on the possible earthly fate of Alexander’s corpse:

Alexander died, Alexander was buried,

Alexander returneth into dust; the dust

is earth; of earth we make loam; and why of

that loam, whereto he was converted, might

they not stop a beer-barrel?

This is a chauvinistic English illustration of the fact that Alexander has featured in the national literatures of some eighty countries, stretching from our own Britannic islands to the Malay peninsula by way of Kazakhstan (home of Abai, its national poet). This, in its turn, is another way of saying that Alexander is probably the most famous of the few individuals in human history whose bright light has shot across the firmament to mark the end of one era and the beginning of another. As the novelist Mary Butts put it rather well (in a note to her 1931 fiction, The Macedonian): ‘There are men who sum up an epoch, and men who begin another. Alexander did both.’ She aptly cited, too, another passage of Arrian:

‘I am persuaded that there is no nation, city or people then in being where his name did not reach; for which reason, whatever origin he might boast of, or claim to himself, there seems to me to have been some divine hand presiding over both his birth and his actions,
inasmuch as no mortal on earth either excelled or equalled him.’

Another local testimony – and testament – to Alexander’s fame is as British in its way as can be. To celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the British Museum in 1753, the Royal Mail devised a set of special stamps illustrating just six objects out of the BM’s collection of over seven million artifacts spanning some two million years of the human past. One of these six represents a stone bust of Alexander carved in the Hellenistic era (about 200 bce): Alexander, ‘who’, according to the promotional material, ‘after his death, was worshipped as a god’.

That is not quite accurate; he was also, crucially, worshipped as a living god. But one ancient figure who certainly was worshipped as
a god only after his death was the proto-Roman emperor Julius Caesar, in whose life Plutarch (as Shakespeare well knew) found a parallel to that of Alexander. Reasonably enough, since in some respects Caesar did come quite close to equalling Alexander – though only after many more years of trying – and he did give his name to a type of autocratic ruler (Kaiser, Czar). When Julius was on an early tour of imperial duty in Spain, Plutarch relates, he is said to have gazed at a statue of Alexander (perhaps like the one now in the Museum at Seville, which came from the Roman colony of Italica that produced two later Roman emperors). And he wept because, whereas Alexander had died at thirty-two, king of so many peoples, he himself at that same age had not yet achieved any brilliant success. I am no Julius Caesar. But I am fifty-six at the time of writing this – so you can, I hope, imagine how I feel.

Many many more illustrations of Alexander’s fame could be given. St Augustine wasn’t hugely impressed: he considered him (in Frank Holt’s paraphrase of the City of God passage) ‘a rogue with a global appetite for plunder’ – a rather startlingly modern image. St John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople, objected to the way that coins bearing Alexander’s image were often bound to people’s heads and feet as apotropaic talismans. The modern equivalent of this is perhaps to be found on the tennis court: the Australian player Mark Philippoussis, whose father is Greek, carries an Alexander tattoo. Presumably Chrysostom would have been more in sympathy with Dante, who consigned Alexander to the seventh circle of his Inferno, along with (other?) thieves, murderers and tyrants. Even in Greece today sailors in distress are said to be confronted by a water-nymph who demands to know ‘Where is the great Alexander?’ To which the only satisfactory response is: ‘Great Alexander lives and reigns.’ Indeed.

Such in fact is his continuing fame even in today’s very differently structured global world that business journalists write management books purporting to derive and to convey ‘lessons from the great empire builder’. And American film-makers and their financial backers are prepared to commit millions of dollars to exploring, recreating and perhaps even, they hope, enhancing the fame of the original. But was fame or glory, as Abai would have it, the spur for Alexander – the holy grail that drove him to achieve what he did? And, though without question incomparably famous both now and in his lifetime, was he, is he, also ‘great’, let alone ‘the Great’? These are just some of the major questions that we shall seek to answer in the course of our hunt for a new interpretation of Alexander’s peculiar genius.

My answers, any answers, must necessarily be provisional, tentative and more or less speculative. For Alexander has been handed down to us ultimately as an enigma, thanks above all to the inadequate nature of our sources of evidence. Though the extant evidence is very far from slight in quantity, it is in several respects seriously deficient in quality. It is mainly non-contemporary, it is partisan (con as well as pro), and it tends to be sensationalist. Whichever of the major aspects of Alexander’s career we study, therefore, we are usually unable to reach anything firmer than a high probability in explanation, and even that degree of probability is a rarity. The very facts themselves – what actually happened – are often unclear. Like that of the ancient Roman historian Tacitus, therefore, our prime watchword as historians of Alexander must be distrust of what we are told.

Some students of Alexander, indeed, believe that the best that can be done in the way of historical retrieval is to focus on the various images of the man that the different kinds and media of evidence provide, without hoping or expecting to be able to proceed further to uncover anything like the – or any sort of – truth about Alexander. The present book will indeed pay due attention to the image, or rather images, of Alexander, and to the abundant mythistorical tradition that sprang up around him in his own lifetime and has continued vigorously to our own day. But it will also argue that a careful reading of the most reliable ancient sources, both written texts and broadly archaeological data, can reveal something substantial about what made Alexander tick, and how and why he was able to achieve what he did.

I shall begin by tracing in outline Alexander’s career from his birth at Pella in Macedonia in summer 356 to the beginning of his campaign of conquest against the Persian Empire in 334. This will be only an outline account, but it will provide a geographical and chronological backdrop and framework for the subsequent thematic chapters; and, as I go through, I shall indicate those points at which the key themes singled out for detailed discussion are engaged. The purely geographical frame of Alexander’s achievements will constantly be referred to. Polybius (a major Greek historian of the second century bce) believed that a proper history couldn’t be written except by someone who’d inspected all the scenes of historical action in person. Unfortunately, this has not been possible for me, not by a long chalk, but what I shall try to do is bring out the salient features of terrain and climate in every relevant case, beginning with Alexander’s own home territory of Macedonia (Upper and Lower). I shall then dog Alexander’s footsteps for well over twenty thousand miles (30,000 kilometres) as he led victorious armies, first north towards the Danube then south into central Greece, before finally setting off for Asia, never to return to Europe, in 334.

Between 334 and 331 he defeated the Persian Great King’s Mediterranean navy – paradoxically, unpredictably and perhaps undeservedly – by land. That is, he captured its bases one by one, especially in the Levant, where the siege of Tyre in 332 was crucial. This meant that, with mainland Greece under the firm control of Regent Antipater, Alexander could for the most part concentrate unswervingly on winning a series of major set-piece battles against Darius III. Of these there were three: the Granicus river in western Anatolia in 334, Issus in southern Anatolia in 333, and Gaugamela in Mesopotamia in 331. Much more, and very hazardous, fighting lay ahead. But to all intents and purposes from the middle of 329, when a kinsman and would-be successor of the dead Darius was executed, Alexander had no rival as ruler of a new, massively enlarged empire. Eventually, this would stretch from Greece to Pakistan, taking in on the way – among other countries or regions – Egypt, Syria and Babylonia, as well as, of course, the old Persian heartland of Iran.

The hardest fighting, and in its way the most admirable of Alexander’s military successes, occurred in the uplands of central Asia between 329 and 327. This was episodic and irregular guerrilla fighting against tribal warrior bands, not a series of formal, traditional encounters with national or civic armies in open field of battle. Alexander’s father Philip had, it was neatly said by a later biographer, ‘fought his wars by marriages’: that is to say, he had combined straightforward fighting and conquest with marital diplomacy and bridge-building, either to lessen his enemies’ resistance, or to ensure their quiescence after defeat; and he had done so no fewer than seven times. Alexander imitated his father only twice, in Sogdia in 327 and in Iran in 324, and each was a sign not of power and success but rather of the difficulty with which the victory had been won, and the complexity of any subsequent maintenance of his authority. Later writers talked these marriages up in romantic terms, especially his first with Roxane, but the truth was surely more pragmatically prosaic.

Once he had Iran and its environs more or less securely under his control, by the summer of 327, it is arguable that Alexander did not need to embark on further conquest. He did not need, for example, to reconquer the land beyond the Hindu Kush mountains, in modern Pakistan, that had once belonged to the Persian Empire but long since been lost and abandoned. Yet not only did Alexander inspire, cajole or drive his men (and their sexual partners) across and into Pakistan and India, but he made as if to press on ever further eastwards, to the very edge of the world (as that was then generally conceived), to where the furthermost landmass was lapped by the engirdling Ocean. As the Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus put it: ‘The fates waited for him to complete the subjugation of the Orient and reach Ocean, achieving all that a mortal man was capable of.’

A tremendous and astounding victory was gained in 326 over the Paurava Rajah (his name was Hellenized as ‘Porus’), elephants and all, at the River Hydaspes (modern Jhelum; see further Chapter 7). But when the men, the Macedonian core, reached the River Hyphasis (the modern Beas), their sufferings from long years of campaigning exacerbated by unheard-of natural torments like the monsoon, they delivered their – literal – ultimatum to Alexander, who was forced to concede his first defeat: at the hands of his own men. With ill grace and unappealing savagery Alexander cut a path to the mouth of the Indus, dispatching many Indians, on the one hand – and in another sense, on the other, a part of his troops back to Iran by sea. Perhaps recklessly he took the remainder in person through the gruelling Makran desert of Baluchistan.

This near-final – as it was to prove – major military effort took some of the gloss off Alexander’s previous astonishing military achievements. His return to Iran, to the centre of his new empire, forced upon his immediate practical consciousness for the first time the nature and urgency of the problem of managing and administering this vast new entity. Not surprisingly, he did not always get it right. Not only did his Asiatic appointees as governors prove corrupt, inefficient or disloyal, or all three. Also, his childhood chum and now Imperial High Chancellor, Harpalus, decided in 324 to defect (for the second time) to mainland Greece, adding injury to insult by taking with him a vast sum of what should have been Alexander’s treasure. Alexander’s difficulties were compounded by the loss, this time merely to death from disease, of another intimate friend since childhood, his Grand Vizier Hephaestion. Rumour had it – and rumour was for once surely correct – that he and Alexander had once been more than just good friends. At any rate, Alexander’s grief was truly Homeric, as if Achilles were grieving for Patroclus over again. And perhaps he never quite recovered the balance of his mind before he too died – of a fever, probably, though inevitably it was rumoured that he had been assassinated, like his father before him – at Babylon in June 323.

Review:

4.4 out of 5

87.69% of customers are satisfied

5.0 out of 5 stars Awesome book, great author

R.A. · February 14, 2024

Awesome book, great author

5.0 out of 5 stars Great transaction!

I. · January 28, 2024

Shipped quickly and exactly as expected.

5.0 out of 5 stars Best book on Alexander I have read yet

M.P. · January 4, 2015

Best book on Alexander I have read yet. But, as advertised, it is only best for those who already know the story and stories of Alexanders life and accomplishments. Cartledge is to be commended for being a very logical critic of the genre and of the man himself.

3.0 out of 5 stars Heavily unsubstantiated, pompous author

L.G. · March 11, 2011

This author is so full of his own ideas he hardly takes the time to step down from his cloud to provide evidence for some of his key arguments.Also, he describes the torsion catapult as a "spring-powered-crossbow," a wholly incorrect statement.He also incorrectly confuses the oblique order and advancing in eschelon, constantly throughout the text, which makes it even more confusing.He claims that Cavalry actually have a disadvantage over infantry because their spears weighed less, completely neglecting the fact that the Animal's weight would be added to the thrust. He actually states that the only advantages of cavalry were "speed, cohesion, horsemanship, and courage at close quarters." Ironically, he forgets the most important factor, the factor that made cavalry a devastating weapon for over 2000 years, the size and strength of the animal and it's willingness to be ridden. A slightly lighter spear being wielded from horseback being compared to a slightly heavier spear being wielded by a slow, clunky foot-soldier...there is no comparison, the Cavalry will strike with more impetus, delivering a much more powerful blow, not least of all because their spears would be substantially shorter. (ask ANY medieval historian about the advantages of cavalry and you will get the same response...)Besides the numerous lapses of thought and small factual errors (the above are just some of the more egregious lapses of judgement, from a military historian's standpoint)Cartledge is excessively difficult to follow because he bounces all over the spectrum of time. This is alright, if you actually have a reason for it, which Cartledge often does not. This is especially apparent when, in the middle of a chapter discussing Alexander's relationship with his soldiers, Cartledge randomly leads the reader into a completely unrelated paragraph about Alexander's alleged homosexuality, the cult of the Gymnasium, and the homosexuality of the Theban band...then, a paragraph later, returns to his original thesis. (the paragraph is amazingly out of place, so much so that several of my acquaintances who have also read this book have, like myself, raised their eyebrows and said "huh?" So, I'm not alone on this point either.)Cartledge's book is arranged as a series of essays that are thrown together in a hodgepodge manner, and some of the chapters even say (nearly) the exact same thing, border-line verbatim. (which made me feel ripped off, some parts almost seemed copy-pasted from an earlier chapter.)I recommend avoiding this author unless you have already read GOOD book on the man, such as Grotke, Ayrault Dodge, etc. there are literally dozens of good books on Alexander, and this is not one of them.If you are looking for a rough account of Alexander's life, from a man who has a pathetically shallow grasp of military discipline, tactics, strategy, and technology, this book may be for you. If you want a heavily biased account of Alexander from a pompous 'in-his-own-head' scholar, this book may be for you.I suggest, beginners and serious scholars alike however, look elsewhere.

4.0 out of 5 stars Middle of the road

J. · March 20, 2015

This is, as other reviewers have already mentioned and discussed, an excellent book. It is also a thoughtful one where the author, with his usual talent, scholarship and accessible writing style, seeks (and very largely succeeds) to come up with an entertaining piece that is targeted at the general reader but may also be useful for specialists. Customers should not that this is NOT yet another biographer of the conqueror or, perhaps to be more accurate, it is not the "usual" and yet another biographer of Alexander. Instead, Paul Cartledge has investigated a number of key themes associated with "Alexander the Great's" life and achievements, and carefully discussed them.I have titled this review "middle of the road" because, in most cases, this is the overall impression that the book gave me. The author strives to keep to the middle ground on just about all of the themes that he reviews. This middle ground opposes the traditional and heroicised view of Alexander, which derives from what Cartledge (and others) have presented as the "official sources" derived from Callisthenes and/or written by eyewitnesses (such as Ptolemy) and which are largely reflected by one of the main remaining sources, and the "modern" view of Alexander, which also draws on surviving sources to some extent and owes so much to Badian. This "modern' view, informed by the 20th century experiences of totalitarian regimes, is much less favorable and even, for some authors (Bosworth, in particular) mostly hostile, with Alexander depicted as a kind of "monster" who did little if any good and whose demise triggered some forty years of fighting between his self-appointed Successors.As already mentioned, Paul Cartledge's piece is a very valuable contribution to unconvering "the truth behind the myth" although, as the author is honest enough to state, discussions and controversies on Alexander will go on and a number of issues will ultimately remain unresolved because so much of the sources have been lost and only fragments of some of the 20 primary sources remain, often as summaries from much later Roman authors or Greek authors writing in Roman times, or as quotations from the same authors. A complement to this valuable piece is now Anson's contributions on "Themes and issues" which, in some cases, are clearly a response to Cartledge's views.Perhaps the main merit of this book is to show that the extreme versions presenting Alexander in either a very favorable or a very negative way are excessive, colored by prejudices and may even, when considering the sources, correspond to specific agendas. One particularly interesting piece is the demonstration showing that while Alexander's campaigns certainly did have an impact on Macedonia's population, this impact was somewhat more limited than Bosworth has made it up to be and the country was not durably deprived of adult "Makedones" males as a result of his far-flung campaigns. Other points of view may be perhaps more disputable. As Anson has shown in his more recent work, it is doubful as to whether Alexander can really be portrayed as the "founder of the Hellenistic world" because it is unlikely that he had such an intention and may not have cared about it, unlike some of his Successors who definitely needed to consolidate their respective regimes.While excellent, if only because it shows to what extent our views of Alexander will have to remain somewhat speculative due to the lack of surviving primary sources, the book did however have some a limits, and this is regardless of whether you agree with the author's views. The first limit is a consequence of the author's choice to present the outstanding Macedonian monarch in a thematic way. To get the full benefit of Cartledge's insights and views, you probably need to have already a (good) grasp of the period, and of Alexander's "life and deeds" in particular. To be fair, however, this concern has been somewhat mitigated by the author because he has provided a glossary of terms and a comprehensive list of characters with their main claims to fame. Both of these elements are extremely useful. The second limit was perhaps a bit more surprising. The book contains diagrams of all of Alexander's main battles in Asia and of the siege of Tyre. However, the discussion of these is very limited or even almost non-existent at times.Something that was particularly missing was a disccusion showing to what extent Alexander's battle tactics reflected his personality and were frequently or even systematically) brilliant but very high risk gambles. He could have lost - and almost did lose - his life in just about every encounter. Another such gamble, and the only one on which Cartledge really insists, was his decision to dismiss his fleet and to defeat the Persian naval forces by conquering all of the ports that they could use. As Paul Cartledge shows very well, this, and Alexander's decision to go to Egypt, gave time for Darius to rally and rebuild yet another army. A third - and related - issue is that Cartledge mentions several times to what extent Alexander was fortunate, at least up to 330, because even when he got himself in trouble, he managed to extricate himself and/or the ennemy was unable to take full advantage of his difficulties. It is therefore a pit of a pity that the author could not be bothered to analyse Alexander's victories at Granicus, Issos and Gaugamela in more detail, because such an analysis would have shown that all three battles were hard fought and their outcome was certainly not predictable. Interestingly also, and until Darius could be captured, none of these victories would really be decisive, however brilliant they were. This relates to the main reason for Alexander's relentless pursuit of Darius after Gaugamela: it was essential to capture the Persian monarch (preferably) and even kill him if necessary and, more generally, from preventing him from rallying and reforming yet another army from the Perisan empire's heartlands and Eastern borders.There are, however, some areas where Cartledge does take sides. One The example is that of Alexander's later years where he joins the existing concensus and accepts that Alexander's character became more despotic and took a turn for the worse, even if he refrains from seing Alexander as a paranoid alcoholic, as another author has. Another example is the depiction of Alexander as always wanting and needing "more" and wanting and needing to be in a class of his own, as a hero and then as a living god. This is also a theme revisited by Anson's work and it is particularly interesting to read both books in parralel and compare the views of both authors. Four strong stars.

5.0 out of 5 stars surprise

L. · December 14, 2012

really enjoyed this book more than expected. definately one of those when you are just interested in it and you won't be dissapointed. fast shipping!!

2.0 out of 5 stars The author seems to dislike Alexander

E.D. · June 15, 2022

100 pages in and I need to stop wasting my time on this book. The author doesn't seem to even like Alexander the Great whole I was just looking for a book to get excited about.

5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars

A.j. · November 9, 2017

Very helpful for my history class

Great Condition

C. · July 28, 2020

Received earlier than estimation and in great condition

Anatomy of a Hero

S.M. · April 12, 2015

Paul Cartledge's thematic approach to an assessment of Alexander is strongly recommended as a follow up to a chronological account of his life. It is scholarly without being tedious based on a study of the available sources, its style is accessible with the occasional lapse into the colloquial which is perhaps unworthy of a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge! He provides a range of notes and maps helpful to the general reader without interrupting his main arguments. His judgement on Alexander that ' all power corrupts ......." is measured and seems fair on the presentation of his evidence but his final words restore to Alexander an achievement which makes him an unexpected hero for our time : Perhaps, then, this is the time for all of us - of whatever religious persuasion or none - to recover an Alexander who can symbolise peaceful, multiethnic coexistence.

Empfehlenswert!

D.H.P. · June 9, 2013

Das ist eines der derzeit besten Bücher, wenn nicht das beste, über Alexander den Großen!Der Autor berichtet überaus informativ, fair und lesenswert!

A scholarly work

R.W.D. · July 3, 2024

This is a scholarly academic book than a book . Knowing the basics of Alexander's life I cannot say that I learned a great deal more . The author provides a plethora of detail which are often repeated because of the way the book is structured . For the academic study of Alexander I would highly recommend this book but for the reader interested in the basics of Alexander's life it is sometimes a difficult slog

Excellent book

J.J. · September 30, 2020

I didn’t know much about Alexander the Great but I wanted to find out more. I am very pleased I chose this book. It is a brilliant choice if you are a novice on the subject but want to know more. It’s not too detailed but sufficiently detailed to enable you to gain a full appreciation of the man and his achievements.

Visit the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group Store

Alexander the Great

Name: Alexander the Great
Brand: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
SKU: U1400079195
Price: 16.06 BHD
Availability: InStock
Rating: 4.3 (13 reviews)

4.3

^BHD16⁰⁶¹

Quantity:

Order today to get by

Free delivery on orders over BHD 20

Return and refund policies

Product origin: United States

Electrical items shipped from the US are by default considered to be 120v, unless stated otherwise in the product description. Contact Bolo support for voltage information of specific products. A step-up transformer is required to convert from 120v to 240v. All heating electrical items of 120v will be automatically cancelled.

All product information listed on the site are from 3rd party sources, including images and reviews. bolo.bh is not liable for any claims or promotions mentioned on the product description or images with textual content. For detailed product information, please contact the manufacturer or Bolo support by logging into your account. Unless stated otherwise during checkout, all import taxes and duty are included in the price mentioned on the product page. bolo.bh follows the rules and regulations of sale in Bahrain and will cancel items in an order that are illegal for sale in Bahrain. We take all the necessary steps to ensure only products for sale in Bahrain are displayed. Product stock and delivery estimate may change with the seller even after placing the order. All items are shipped by air and items marked “Dangerous Goods (DG)” by the IATA will be cancelled from orders. We strive to process your order as soon as it is finalized.

Similar items from “Historical”

Books

Biographies & Memoirs

Historical

Description:

Editorial Reviews

Review

About the Author

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Review:

Alexander the Great

More from this brand

Similar items from “Historical”

Description:

Editorial Reviews

Review

About the Author

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Review:

Alexander the Great

Shipping Policies

Voltage Disclaimer

Product Disclaimer

More from this brand

Similar items from “Historical”