American Journal of Philology

Fraser’s survey aims at determining “what cities [Alexander] did indeed found, how many out of the large number attributed to him by our various sources are actually historical, and in what sense” (vi). Resolving these issues requires the analysis of sources which are plagued by inconsistent geographical information on the one hand, and a general silence concerning Alexander’s motives behind his foundations on the other. Consequently, Fraser opens with a critical survey of the Alexandrias listed in Stephanus of Byzantium’s as well as in the corpus of texts preserving, or inspired by, the Western traditions of the Alexander Romance. This is followed, in chapter 2, by an analysis of lists found in the Perso-Arabic and Syriac versions of the Romance. Having disposed of the baggage of mythical foundations, Fraser then identifies those Alexandrias which are authenticated by historical and geographical texts, in chapters 3 and 4, and attempts, in chapter 5, to locate them on the ground. In conclusion, chapter 6 considers Alexander’s motives in founding cities, and the Epilogue surveys the subsequent fortunes of those few foundations which Fraser feels justified at the end of his analysis in attributing to Alexander himself. The book is also supplied with appendices detailing the formation of the Alexander Romance and the accounts of Chinese pilgrims to India, with a table summarizing references to Alexander foundations known from literature, and with detailed indices.

As in his Ptolemaic Alexandria, Fraser brings an encyclopedic knowledge of sources—both primary and secondary—to the issues at hand, reserving the text for general discussion and relegating detailed argumentation to the notes. Although the material available to him had been known to previous generations, his study is the first comprehensive survey of the various Alexander foundations since Tarn’s The Greeks in Bactria and India (Cambridge 1951). Unlike Tarn, however, he prefers to dismiss (or assimilate to attested foundations) most of the Alexandrias named in Stephanus and the Romance; some because they are unsubstantiated in historical and geographical texts, and others because they represent cities actually founded by the Seleucids. In doing so, he lays strong emphasis on identifying the “pre-texts” of the Alexander Romance (in appendix 2), as well as the political motivations of their Ptolemaic authors (in chapter 1), and while he concedes that his conclusion can “only be reached by as much unverifiable argument as that of Droysen and Tarn” (viii), this part of the book is highly valuable for creating a framework with which to approach the mythical accretions to Alexander’s historical achievements.

Similarly useful is the analysis of Alexander’s aims in creating a network of new cities, in chapter 6, even if it is based only partly on statements attributable to Alexander, and relies heavily on patterns observable in his foundations, on general geopolitical considerations, and, consequently, on our ability to locate [End Page 133] the historical Alexandrias. As above, there is little to quarrel with in the general conclusion that the foundations represent rather Alexander’s ambition to recreate the Achaemenid Empire under Macedonian domination than an attempt to spread Greek culture, and that even reduced to a historical scale they are of a magnitude to foreshadow the strategic thinking of the British Raj.

Although Fraser considers the task of locating authentic Alexander foundations subordinate to the study of sources, his assertion (102) that the historicity of the foundations does not rest, even partly, on their precise identification on the ground is surprising, given the inability of the textual evidence to resolve many geographical and historical questions, and the difficulty, just mentioned, of establishing Alexander’s motives in founding cities without pinpointing their location. Consequently, the lengthy excursus on topography, making up chapter 5, carries considerable importance. It also testifies to the complexity of the issues, since the evidence consists of conflicting geographical data regarding cities, which remain frequently unreconcilable with the archaeological record even when supplemented by the presumed course of troop movements, in turn determined by logistics and by the presumed political motives of...