Scan barcode
A review by liroa15
Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire by James Romm
4.0
I've never read anything by Romm before, so I was unsure quite what to expect, but I found this book to be very easy to read. Romm takes great pains to lay everything out as concisely as possible--which isn't particularly concisely in some places, but that's to be expected in a period as fractured as this one--in a period as fractured as this one. Romm manages to make several of the major players seem sympathetic, most especially Eumenes, without failing to report on the best information he can. I admire his ability to split the first 8 years following Alexander's death into rough geo-political theatres, and then to further subdivide those theatres by general since I think it added a lot of clarity to the narrative.
I found his overall approach to a very confused (and somewhat less well-documented period, at least in popular modern scholarship, than the one immediately preceding it) very easy-to-follow and concise. I found his style of narration to be easy to read, which isn't always the case with academics. I also really appreciated that the typeset was really nice, and interspersing the images in the text rather than the more common inset pages.
The one thing I would have appreciated, which probably fell outside of the scope of Romm's work, was a more comprehensive epilogue that explained what became of the dynasties founded by Alexander's generals, most especially the Seluecids, who Romm hardly mentions throughout the work. I think it would have also been interesting had Romm chosen to expound a little more on the Ptolemies and their succession in Egypt, especially since Romm takes pains to mention the end of the of the dynasty--Cleopatra--and drops several hints about the Ptolemy's interesting dynastic plans. While these things may not technically have added anything to the geo-political narrative, but I think it definitely would have helped to humanize some of the notable figures of the time. (Conversely, Romm may not have wished to do this, but, unlike the mythology that surrounded Alexander, I don't see what Romm loses by painting these men as human with human motivations and considerations.)
Overall, I enjoyed both Romm's scholarship and his approach to reporting it.
I found his overall approach to a very confused (and somewhat less well-documented period, at least in popular modern scholarship, than the one immediately preceding it) very easy-to-follow and concise. I found his style of narration to be easy to read, which isn't always the case with academics. I also really appreciated that the typeset was really nice, and interspersing the images in the text rather than the more common inset pages.
The one thing I would have appreciated, which probably fell outside of the scope of Romm's work, was a more comprehensive epilogue that explained what became of the dynasties founded by Alexander's generals, most especially the Seluecids, who Romm hardly mentions throughout the work. I think it would have also been interesting had Romm chosen to expound a little more on the Ptolemies and their succession in Egypt, especially since Romm takes pains to mention the end of the of the dynasty--Cleopatra--and drops several hints about the Ptolemy's interesting dynastic plans. While these things may not technically have added anything to the geo-political narrative, but I think it definitely would have helped to humanize some of the notable figures of the time. (Conversely, Romm may not have wished to do this, but, unlike the mythology that surrounded Alexander, I don't see what Romm loses by painting these men as human with human motivations and considerations.)
Overall, I enjoyed both Romm's scholarship and his approach to reporting it.