I don't know much about the man, except that he has written two exceptional books and he's a prof at Luther College, all of which makes him more than all right with me.
The two books are biographies of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar--aside from Jesus the Lord, the two greatest figures of antiquity. Both books are absorbing, readable, insightful, and succinctly and exceptionally well-written.
Moment of personal reflection: I acknowledge the importance of Alexander. One of the most significant events of history, with effects to this day, is the Hellenization of an immense region stretching, arguably, from Spain through the Mediterranean into the middle-east and to the borders of India. Alexander is largely responsible for that. Great cities as far apart as Alexandria and Kandahar carry his name.
In fact, dear Christians, the Hellenization of Israel was one of the key issues of the first century in that region. The Sadducees, the fiercest opponents of Jesus, were Hellenists through and through.
Further, one must grant Alexander's exceptional military prowess. Even a pacifist can appreciate the siege of Tyre. Alexander didn't have a navy with which to attack this important city surrounded by the sea so he built a highway half a mile long--in the ocean, for cryin' out loud--and attacked it by land.
The Tyreans were rather like the Jebusites taunting David. David approached Jerusalem and the Jebusites told him that he didn't stand a chance of taking the city. By the time David got through with them, the Jebusites were short one city.
Like the Jebusites, the Tyreans hooted at and taunted the Greeks up until the exact point that it started to dawn on them that he was really going to get it done. Even at that, they put up a fierce resistance, but, like David, Alexander took the city.
So I grant the importance and military skill of Alexander, but it does seem a trifle sad that one of the greatest figures in history was basically a drunken thug. When he wasn't drunk, he was fighting. He knew nothing other than aggression. He died from chugging a (possibly poisoned) jug of wine.
Julius Caesar, on the other hand, is a person one can admire. He combined great military skill with other commendable qualities. He was highly intelligent and personally brave. He had a bold sense of timing and was a deft political operator. Though he didn't live long enough to achieve it, one suspects that Julius Caesar might have delivered a real program for Rome in addition to mere conquest.
Caesar had a considerable facility with the Latin language--his Gallic Wars are still read and studied. In addition to which, his diplomatic skill and personal charm won him the affection and loyalty of no less a figure than Cleopatra, and she was a person not easily impressed. To compare the two figures: Alexander was a hooligan, Caesar a mensch.
Thank you, Professor Freeman, for two fine books.
Comments