W.'s volume is an attempt to examine the reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great through the traditional military lens but with the added focus on Graeco–Macedonian and Persian culture. In many respects, the work is a much more holistic approach to the two kings and their kingdom than, say, J. Ashley's The Macedonian Empire: the Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359–323 b.c. (1988), which focuses almost entirely on the military aspects of Philip and Alexander's reigns. In contrast, W. aims to explore the impact of war, conquest and imperialism on Macedonian, Greek and Persian civilisation and culture. More specifically, the work looks at the many ways in which Philip and Alexander's decisions helped to build and destroy an empire while at the same time laying the foundation for what would become the Hellenistic Age. In the end, W.'s purpose is ‘to decide if one of them [Philip or Alexander] ultimately better served his kingdom’ (p. 5).
The volume is divided into fifteen chapters and includes copious ancillary materials. However, it is a bit unevenly divided as only five of the fifteen chapters concern Philip, although this imbalance is more than likely a result of the limited source material for Philip's reign as well as the plethora of ink that has been spilt about Alexander over the ages. W. begins Chapter 1, ‘Greece and Macedonia’, with a discussion of Graeco–Macedonian politics and culture in which he deftly weaves in Philip and Alexander helping the reader to understand how the two men fit into the greater picture of Graeco–Macedonian relations. The succeeding chapter is a narrative of Philip's accomplishments in Macedonia, notably the unification of Upper and Lower Macedonia, his military reforms and the settling of issues on the borders. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 stress the interactions between Philip and the Greeks and set the stage for the proposed conquest of Persia, which Alexander ultimately fulfilled. Throughout, Philip is cast as a political and military genius taking advantage of the ‘inefficiencies in the polis system’ (p. 58). W.'s Philip, then, is a giant among mere men.
In contrast, W.'s Alexander is a brilliant military tactician but ‘a flawed man and king’ (p. 121). He is certainly not the giant his father was, but neither is he inferior. W. starts his chronicle of Alexander's reign with his accession to the throne and the submission of the Greeks. Then, in the space of nearly seven chapters, Alexander's military conquest of Persia is chronicled while weaving in the king's administrative policies which, according to W., often seem to have been made for expediency and practicality rather than any long-term plan for rule. W. does emphasise the rather salacious or controversial aspects of Alexander's reign, most especially Alexander's pothos. For example, five pages are devoted to the visit to the oracle of Zeus Ammon at Siwa in 331. Similarly, W. argues that Alexander's overwhelming desire for conquest was a factor in the Hyphasis River mutiny in 326. In the end, W. concludes that Alexander was a conqueror, not a good king, as seen not only in Alexander's flaws but also in the chaos that ensued after his death.
W. is prone to a bit of hyperbole when referring to Alexander, such as when he sets the stage for Alexander's Persian campaign, ‘the Greek world was never going to be the same again’ (p. 137). He also refers to Alexander's reign as a ‘reign of terror’ because of the precariousness Alexander's courtiers must have felt since Alexander could fly into a rage at any moment (p. 307). This depiction is a contrast to his characterisation of Philip whom W. points out was not known to act impulsively (p. 73). The two different characterisations clearly reveal that W. favours Philip over Alexander. Indeed, W. ultimately concludes that Alexander was not possible without Philip, and not just because Philip was Alexander's father. Alexander's conquests have no meaning without the political, military and cultural foundation laid by Philip. Despite W.'s bias, this sort of rhetorical flourish does not necessarily detract from the overall argument and can certainly aid non-specialists in understanding the historical significance of the actions and decisions of both Macedonian kings – especially Alexander.
W. makes good use of the primary source tradition even if he does at times tend to rely heavily on Plutarch's works, which are not without their flaws. Several chapters (2, 7 and 8) begin with a brief paragraph regarding the source tradition – both primary and secondary – which helps to highlight some of the problems with a historical study of Philip and Alexander. Because of those problems, W. concludes that any attempt to reach a real Philip or Alexander is impossible because ‘rhetoric was not history’ (p. 311). The endnotes and bibliography are copious, revealing a breadth of research; though one would expect as much from an author who has previously published biographies of the two kings as well as a plethora of scholarly articles. In this regard, the notes and bibliography could provide any potential researcher of Macedonia with a good starting point. Moreover, the volume can be used as a useful tool for teaching undergraduates about the historical method.
The ancillary materials could be of tremendous use to the non-academic or to those wanting an introductory glimpse at Macedonian kingship. For instance, W. includes an appendix, ‘The Sources of Information’, which is essentially a bibliographic essay discussing the vagaries of the sources for these two individuals. In addition to a series of maps at the beginning of the volume, he includes a timeline and a ‘Cast of Principal Characters’ both of which are useful for keeping people and events organised, although W.'s writing style is such that one does not get mired down in a litany of names, places and events. Also included are maps and military schematics as well as relevant images (such as the archaeological finds at Vergina) making this volume handy for those just being introduced to Philip and Alexander's story.
By far the greatest strength of the work is W.'s ability to weave in various cultural aspects, such as religion, in order to put Philip and Alexander in the larger cultural context. For instance, W. contextualises the duties and responsibilities of the Great King of Persia, especially with regard to religion, which, he argues, Alexander never quite understood. He also explains Alexander's missteps with the gymnosophists in India by discussing Brahman culture. These socio-cultural caveats help to contextualise some of Alexander's poor decisions. They also add a depth to the work that provides a greater understanding of the two men, especially Alexander's shortcomings and the overall impact of the Macedonian throne on Greek and Persian culture.
W. succeeds in producing a historical volume that fits within the parameters of the series on ancient warfare and civilisation. Furthermore, it is a work that can be used successfully in undergraduate courses both for its utilisation of source material and for its argumentation. It does not, however, add a great deal of new information to the corpus of work on the two kings. For that, scholars can refer to W.'s many other works on the subject. What is unique about the work is its attempt to treat both kings in one volume and thus provide a larger context for the relationships between Greeks, Macedonians and Persians.
