It has become increasingly difficult in recent years to find an area of Alexander scholarship that is yet to be explored, but R. succeeds in finding an underdeveloped aspect of events surrounding Alexander's life. The reasons why a study of the soldiers involved in the Wars of the Diadochoi is difficult are numerous, and almost certainly contribute to the lack of focus on this particular subject. R. highlights these difficulties in his introduction, beginning with the consistently elitist approach of the extant sources. Given the fact that the majority of sources concentrate on the actions and support the viewpoints of the generals rather than the men, any work from the soldier's perspective must necessarily be conjectural rather than proven. Along the same lines, despite the main chronological focus on the events after his death, Alexander almost inevitably looms over the entire narrative. This is really not as much a problem as a necessity in that the relationship which existed between the veterans and Alexander (and even Philip II) influenced the way in which they interacted with their new leaders.
The work begins with a chapter on bias in the history of Hieronymous of Cardia which R. believes to be the main source for Diodorus for this period. This chapter effectively demonstrates the tendencies of Hieronymous to find the causes for actions in ulterior motives and to display an elitist approach throughout his narrative. The second chapter provides background for the veterans' interactions with the Successors by analysing their relationship with Alexander, specifically examining moments of confrontation such as the ‘mutiny’ on the Hyphasis and the uproar at Opis. Progressing chronologically, the third chapter addresses the role the Macedonian veterans played in the debates surrounding the succession to Alexander's throne. The splitting of loyalty between the infantry and cavalry is well-documented throughout the chapter and R. effectively demonstrates that the men were probably satisfied with the compromise drawn between Perdiccas and Philip III even if their generals were not. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the dissolution of the Royal army and the distribution of Macedonian veterans among the Successors, beginning with Perdiccas and Craterus, who would reasonably have commanded the most veterans after the death of Alexander. Craterus had left before Alexander's death with over 10,000 veterans, and Perdiccas was now regent. Like Alexander, Perdiccas pushed his troops to their mental and physical limits, though Perdiccas' frequent failures against Ptolemy in Egypt led to his loss of popularity which opened the door for his commanders and other elites to assassinate him. R. also draws the useful comparison between commands in Asia vs those in Europe, in that Craterus and Antipater presented a more unified command than Perdiccas and thus presented the veterans a smaller voice in declaring war against Perdiccas and his supporters. As time wore on and the number of Alexander's veterans depleted, they began to lose their power and ability to decide battles on their own. They were spread among the generals and formed smaller and smaller parts of the individual armies. In short, the longer the Wars of the Successors continued, the less powerful and important Alexander's Macedonian veterans became. Chapter 6 follows the veterans (now dispersed under several commanders) through their campaigns in Asia Minor, and R. is right to point out that whether intentional or not, the veterans to this point had managed to avoid battle with each other. Chapter 7 focusses on Eumenes and the Silver Shields, who after 318 b.c. became the primary group of veterans mentioned in the ancient sources. While R. does give credit to the idea that the Silver Shields joined Eumenes out of a sense of loyalty, he also rationally supposes that Eumenes' access to funds played a role in their decision. Finally, the action of the Silver Shields in battle along with the death of Eumenes is discussed in Chapter 8. After the remaining Silver Shields are dispatched by Antigonus to garrison duties, they disappear from the record. Thus, just seven years after the death of Alexander, his veterans are reduced to memory.
The central theme throughout this work seems to be the use of pragmatic explanation for the actions of the soldiers, and the separation this creates between the men and their commanders. This provides a clear contrast from the work of previous scholars who, like the extant sources, tend to search for more complicated, elitist explanations for events. The common soldier was not interested in power politics and, as R. rightly argues, rarely had access to real power. The concerns of the soldier were focussed on their more immediate well-being, as R.'s interpretation of the events at the Hyphasis demonstrates. In R.'s view, it was Alexander's inability to understand the needs and motivation of his men which led to events like Opis. He is very convincing on this point, particularly when he examines the individual failures of Alexander's generals (notably Perdiccas) to understand the needs of their men in relation to their own ambitions. Pragmatism is also listed as the main cause of many veterans remaining with Eumenes after his impressive string of early victories. With a commander riding a victory high, and the lack of ability to join the forces of Antipater or Antigonus due to geographic constraints, it was in the best interest of these veterans to remain in the service of Eumenes. The soldiers are also portrayed as placing an incredible emphasis on loyalty to the Argead royal house, which could be used to explain why so many generals sought to promote their relationship with Alexander or to gain the support of Philip III and Alexander IV. This loyalty, which R. effectively highlights, is instrumental in understanding the motivation behind the actions of Alexander's veterans.
One of the major strengths of this work is its accessibility. R.'s narrative style is clear, engaging and informative, which renders the work useful to historians of all levels from undergraduates to academics. The flowing style is complemented by extensive footnotes which demonstrate an equally impressive bibliography encompassing all branches and periods of Alexander scholarship. R. makes clear throughout on which side of the many academic debates centred on this time period he stands, and his explanation of these debates allows for a reader relatively unversed in Alexander scholarship to understand long-running academic schisms.
The major question left at the end is intimately linked to the reasons stated above as to why this particular subject has been thus far overlooked by modern scholars. This book certainly has a significant place in scholarship, and serves as a balance to the elitist perspective of sources and scholars alike, but where can research go from here? Unfortunately, it seems as though there is not a great deal of room for further research on this subject. While this work contains many conjectures, they are for the most part shown to be perfectly reasonable in light of the evidence, but evidence in this case is hard to come by, and further work would run the risk of becoming too hypothetical to supplement this book effectively.
The value of the book as a truly novel piece of research outweighs any faults. At under £40 this well-written, well-researched work would make an excellent addition to any undergraduate reading list as well as any academic's bookshelf.
