This collection of essays originated in a conference held in 2007 in honor of Brian Bosworth’s retirement from the University of Western Australia, Sydney. It is a rich and varied volume. To the original nine papers offered at the Sydney conference, six further contributions were added. Bosworth was one of the leading figures in Alexander scholarship of the past decades, perhaps the leading figure. His critical and sober work is hampered neither by the Alexander adoration nor the gratuitous Alexander bashing that pervades much academic writing on Alexander. His 1988 monograph Conquest and Empire stands out as the only comprehensive study of the Macedonian king’s reign that is not entitled Alexander the Great; it also stands out as perhaps the best of its kind. True to its title, Conquest and Empire is a work of History; it does not focus on Alexander’s person or perceived personality. It discusses conquest and empire. Sadly, Professor Bosworth passed away prior to the completion of the book under review.

Before turning to the individual papers, a few words about the volume in its entirety. The title, East and West in the World Empire of Alexander, beautifully evokes Conquest and Empire, and moreover suggests affinity with the Imperial Turn in recent historical research. The subject "East and West" (note the word order) suggests a strong focus on Babylonia, Iran and Central Asia. The title, however, is misleading. None of the essays is concerned with the theme of (universal) empire, and only a few offer non-Greek viewpoints or dare to challenge the unfortunate East-West dichotomy that underlies both the text-based "Classical" approach to the Macedonian expansion and the postcolonial "Orient"-centric reaction to that approach. In fact, only three contributions venture beyond the westernmost edge of Alexander’s Empire: Anson’s paper on Alexander in India (based however on western narrative sources only), Cohen's discussion of Hellenistic settlements in the Middle East, and Wheatley’s excellent discussion of Babylonian and Aramaic chronographic evidence. All others remain safely within viewing distance of the Mediterranean. Absent furthermore are contributions by scholars from continental Europe, and some papers are handicapped by lack of references to recent scholarship in French and German.