The general perspective of researchers who investigate the campaigns of Alexander has been reoriented in recent decades. In this regard one can mention P. Briant's attempt to pull out Darius III from Alexander's shadow (Darius dans l'ombre d'Alexander [2003]). This current interest to survey this episode of history from the viewpoint of the conquered people has motivated H. to write the book under review (p. 2). To answer the question about the nature of resistance, H. first looks at the acts of the opposing side on the battlefield; he then focuses on the resistance of cities to submission (p. 5). Two more aspects could be mentioned: malfeasance on the part of officials and the fact that some Macedonian troops opposed some of their king's actions (p. 6).
This short introduction is followed by sixteen chapters arranged in chronological order. The first one deals with the Panhellenic War (340–334 bce). After an overview of the events that led to Alexander's accession to the throne, H. shifts his attention to the last episodes of Achaemenid history before the reign of Darius III. It comes as a bit of a surprise that, in so doing, he mentions (p. 11 n. 16; p. 12) an outdated reference (A.T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire [1948]). As will be argued below, H. seems to have little regard for the rich contribution of French scholarship, one example of which is the lack of any reference to the qualified, detailed work of D. Lenfant (2004), when he points to the question of the historicity of the Persica of Ctesias of Cnidus (p. 11 n. 18). In the following pages H. discusses the ongoing conflicts in Greece before Alexander's entrance to Asia Minor, which is the subject of Chapter 2, where, in accordance with the book's aim, H. mostly narrates the events from the view of the subjects or people of neighbouring lands (notably the Thracians, the Illyrians and the southern Greeks).
In Chapter 3 H. follows the historical events in Asia Minor with an interest in Persian strategies in the battle of Granicus, whereas Darius is absent. While H. rightly challenges the position of Memnon of Rhodes as pictured by the primary sources (p. 51) and the military actions are described in a more satisfactory manner, the discussion could have benefited from a wider analysis of Persian strategies; particularly, the outstanding disagreements among the Persian commanders in choosing a war strategy could have been analysed in more detail.
The resistance to Alexander by the survivors of Granicus in western satrapies and by the existing Persian fleet constitute the contents of Chapter 4 with special interest in the resistance of cities like Miletus and Halicarnassus. The next chapter, though brief, concentrates on the wars in the Aegean. H. draws more attention to the plans that the Persian side of the war might have had, yet these efforts ‘were outpaced by events in Anatolia’ (p. 78).
The Great King, Darius, finally comes to the fore in Chapter 6, together with his armies. In addition to calculations about the numbers of troops in the Persian army and its composition at Issus, H. pays attention to how Darius is depicted in the sources. That image is analysed against the background of events during and after the battle of Issus. The chapter ends with insightful remarks about the choice of the battleground made by Darius. The discussion continues in Chapter 7. Eventually, the opposing troops meet each other at Issus. H. deals with the topographical features of the battlefield and the identification of its exact location. Then comes the analysis of the position of troops on both sides, the casualties and the scattered efforts of the remainder of the Persian army to recapture Lydia.
The next episodes of the war are the events in the Levant and Egypt, discussed in Chapter 8. Here H. first gives a brief overview of previous revolts and unrest in these regions during the Achaemenid period. The focus then shifts to the resistance of the Tyrians and the defenders of Gaza against the Macedonian army. After their defeat, the path to Egypt was open for the Macedonians. Due to the negative feelings of the Egyptians towards the Persians, H. argues, Alexander did not face many problems in Egypt.
The subject of Chapter 9 is Darius’ last chance to fight the Macedonians back at Gaugamela. Before discussing the battle, H. draws attention to the diplomatic efforts of Darius to find a solution. After the failure of negotiations the third great and final battle comes into sight. This battle receives more attention regarding the strategies of war and what happened in the field. For H. it is neither the strategies nor the tactics of Darius that failed, but rather their execution – a view that is convincingly argued. The submission of Babylon and Susa, two crucial centres of Achaemenid Persia, is also considered. Crossing the very narrow passages of the Zagros, Alexander finally reached the Persian gates, where he met resistance from local soldiers, but managed to reach Persepolis after their defeat. In doing so, Alexander first had to deal with the Uxians, who inhabited the mountainous area between Susiana and Persis. H. considers the sack of Persepolis as ‘a part of the Conqueror's program’ (p. 151), which is basically true. Yet, in this regard, he concentrates on the wealth of Persepolis, whereas the political message Alexander surely intended to send by burning the city is not addressed. While H. believes that ‘for reasons of propaganda, the role of Thaïs suited the Conqueror and his historian’ (p. 155), it must be noted that Persepolis was set on fire to deliver the message that the Achaemenid Empire had come to its end and thus to prevent further resistance.
Darius’ fate after his decision to leave Ecbatana towards the eastern satrapies is treated in Chapter 10. Here a historical figure, Bessus, satrap of Bactria, comes to the fore. The failing path that Darius walked through ended with his death at the hands of Bessus. As H. states, ‘having betrayed and arrested Darius, Bessus now allowed the Conqueror to play the role of avenger and defender of the dignity of kings’ (p. 163). This is the point where many of Darius’ men joined Alexander. The remains of the Achaemenid troops had to fight back in their own homeland, defeated one by one, and this is the subject of Chapters 11 and 13–14, with a discussion of Persianism and related problems in Chapter 12.
It is curious that H. considers Curtius’ narrative of the death of Spitamenes as more sensational than that of Arrian, who says that the Massagetae killed Spitamenes (pp. 194–7). Curtius blames Spitamenes’ wife for murdering him, in a way comparable to the well-known cliché of the Greek image of Persian women.
After a discussion of the difficulties Alexander faced on his way back to Babylon in Chapter 15 and a short epilogue (Chapter 16), which tries to model the resistance to Alexander's conquests and his treatment of the conquered empire, H. introduces the sources in an appendix. The book ends with a glossary, bibliography and index. As noted above, the bibliography is not rich in references to French works. One wonders why the important contribution of P. Briant (Alexandre. Exégèse des lieux communs [2016]) and the edited book of P. Briant and F. Joannès (La transition entre l'empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques [2006]) have been missed.
Although H. aims at writing history from the defeated perspective, his book is still a complete narrative of the Macedonian conquest. As such, students and scholars will read it with interest. In the eyes of the present reviewer H. has been less successful with regard to his overall aim; at the same time his work contains a series of new perspectives and analyses that will enrich the debate on Alexander's conquests.
