Negative Positive
Title: Hammond's scholarship solid, sober
Review: Hammond demonstrates again why he is one of the most respected scholars dealing with Alexander and Macedon. His treatment is solidly grounded in the main historical sources- Arrian, Curtius Rufus, and Diodorus- as well as his own life's work. Alexander is one of the most controversial historical figures and has attracted a wide range of authors; from the brilliant to the sentimental (Peter Green) to the narcissitic (Michael Wood). Caveat lector! While often lumped in with Alexander's apologists (Tarn et al), Hammond's work is generally insightful, evenhanded, and readable, and this is no exception. The book is rather slim and general, but well-referenced (and details are in Arrian if you want them).
Is the review positive or negative? 