The Pioneer Kingdoms of Macedon and Qin is the second entry and first monograph in the CUP series Antiquity in Global Context.[1] Comparative studies between the Graeco-Roman world and the Chinese have experienced a surge of interest in recent years, with numerous works focusing on large-scale comparisons of social, economic, and political systems.[2] This monograph continues this approach. Christopher offers a comparative analysis of the culture and politics of these two kingdoms, especially during the pivotal reigns of Philip II, Alexander III, and Ying Zheng,[3] which, despite their profound influence on the later Graeco-Roman and Chinese worlds, have yet to be the subject of a dedicated comparative study.
After a brief introduction outlining the book’s comparative aims and methodology, Chapter One establishes the necessary foundational context for the cultures and figures under examination. The chapter first provides a geographical overview of Macedon, assessing the availability and limitations of the sources, and outlines the historical trajectory of Macedon up to the reigns of Philip and Alexander. A similar summary is then provided for the Qin until the reign of Ying Zheng. The chapter proceeds with biographic overviews of the three figures, followed by a definition and justification of interpreting Macedon and Qin as peripheral identities. In this, larger cultural spheres (Greek and Zhou) are also explored and important differences highlighted (e.g. the Zhou identity was much more permeable than the Greeks’ during the period under consideration). This discussion culminates with a justification for the rest of the work: while the two cultures shared similarities, it is the “differences between how they went about their rises that constitute the true value of this comparative study” (p. 86).
This foundational chapter is extensive, amounting to roughly one-third of the entire book. It not only elaborates on Christopher’s comparative methodology (only briefly explained in the Introduction), but also utilises a wide range of evidence to provide a detailed narrative summation of the cultures and figures under examination. It strikes a judicious balance in the presentation of foundational information, so that even readers with minimal contextual knowledge of the cultures or figures under consideration are supplied with sufficient background to follow Christopher’s subsequent arguments.
Chapter Two, building upon this foundation, explores how the idea and function of rulership in Macedon and Qin developed up to the reigns of Philip/Alexander and Ying Zheng. In particular, it foregrounds the factors that caused the two cultures, despite starting “from points of seeming initial similarity” (p. 87), to diverge. Rulers in both cultures initially took direct part in military activities, a cultural expectation retained in Macedon but lost in Qin. The chapter examines the two cultures separately before contrasting them in a detailed comparison. Christopher notes that the Macedonian monarch derived power and influence from his role as a leader-as-commander, a position necessitated by constant warfare and reinforced by the dynasty’s mythical descent from Herakles, which in turn further compelled the basileus to display physical and military prowess. A Macedonian ruler was, in theory, answerable to no one but, in practice, was a primus inter pares who had to balance the interests of power-holders at court personally, with little precedent for large-scale delegation of central authority. Conversely, Qin rulers were theoretically subject to the religio-political authority of the Zhou, but in practice were sole rulers within their own state. With the collapse of the Zhou, the ideology of the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ increasingly transformed the idea of rulership from that of a direct military leader to a ritualised and moral authority. This transformation, combined with the bureaucratisation of Qin, resulted in a rulership where the state “needed a ruler but not necessarily to rule” (p. 116). As such, Macedonian rulers were constrained by their ability “to form solid personal relationships,” while Qin rulers could project themselves through their bureaucracy (p. 106). Through this comparative examination, Christoper identifies the development of “delegatory-bureaucratic state structures” as the reason why Qin rulers were abstracted into a “metaphysical force” (p. 119), but Macedonian rulers maintained a rulership that was “immanent, personal and short range” (p. 118).
Chapter Three examines how Macedonian and Qin rulers were received by both the elite and the military. Following a brief discussion of military reforms (i.e. a shift from mounted aristocratic to mass infantry armies in both cultures), the chapter begins its analysis of the causes of subsequent divergence. In particular, Christopher challenges (or at least nuances) the Hoplite Revolution theory—if mass infantry armies were what drove egalitarian principles in Greece, why did this not also occur in China? Some of this difference, as rightly noted, can simply be attributed to time: Qin had over a century to acclimatise to its reforms, while the Macedonians had less than a generation. Through comparison, this chapter further identifies two major underlying causes of divergence. First, the Greek poleis structure allowed for wars of hegemony, whereas Warring States China typically fought wars of annihilation. Consequently, Qin offered individualised incentives to peasant soldiers to kill, while Greek warfare sought to end battles with a minimal loss of life, as captives could be used in peace negotiations. This led to Greek soldiers fighting in the interest of their polis, but Qin soldiers to fight for their personal advancement and survival. Second, Qin curtailed its hereditary aristocracy by involving the common population in the function of the state without expanding aristocratic privileges, whereas Greek city-states established citizen traditions by extending elite rights.
Chapter Four compares the reigns of Philip II, Alexander III, and Ying Zheng under five thematic categories: territorial expansion, population redistribution, self-divinisation, free speech, and assassinations. Christopher reiterates that these figures were chosen because it was during their reigns that the peripherality of their states became the “driver of Greek and Chinese historical developments”, a process that ultimately followed cultural “precedents at every step” (p. 158). This chapter argues that both Philip and Alexander (especially the latter) were operating at a war deficit and needed continual conflict to fund their armies, but also to justify their rule—peace, though preferable to the nobility, would have been “personally catastrophic” for them (p. 163). In this, Christopher presents an interesting reassessment of Alexander—he was neither an “overly romantic” figure driven by pothos nor a genocidal megalomaniac, but a ruler whose motivations were “ultimately products of his cultural-political context” (pp. 164–165). Military expansion was essential to the security of the Argead dynasty, although both figures ultimately failed. Ying Zheng’s apparent bellicosity was likewise not a personal trait but a consequence of cultural-political expectations: his role in the unification of China was largely being “in the right place at the right time,” and his subsequent wars ought to be viewed “systematically and not personally” (p. 172). While this systematic interpretation is largely convincing, Christopher may have overstated the passivity of the First Emperor somewhat—even in later hostile sources, he is depicted as personally engaged in the administration and decision-making of his empire to an admirable degree.[4]
The next section on population transfers highlights the differences between Alexander and Ying Zheng—the latter could implement them on a far larger scale due to his bureaucratic apparatus, whereas the former lacked such means. The subsequent section examines self-divinisation. Philip likely possessed only a hero worship cult, and Alexander’s pursuit of divinity was gradual (from a descendant of Herakles to the son of Zeus, eventually to a living divinity). Christopher argues that Alexander’s apotheosis was a negotiated and situational affair rather than a central occupation. Ying Zheng’s divinity, by contrast, was a “top-down, managed affair” from the onset (p. 188). For the Chinese, religious authority was equated to political authority, and so Ying Zheng (and his court) emphasised the emperor’s divinity to legitimise his regime. Alexander’s political authority, on the other hand, was not dependent on his divinity, and so Alexander had no similar pressing need for it to be recognised, so long as any refusal to accept his divinity did not threaten his temporal authority.
The discussion of free speech in both cultures notes that, in theory, elites during earlier periods could freely express themselves to the ruler (although in practice this was context-dependent). This freedom was curtailed in both cultures, although less so in Macedon due to the recency of Philip’s centralising reforms—Christopher likens Alexander’s reign to the early Warring States period in China. The final section on assassinations highlights a striking difference—all attempts to assassinate Philip and Alexander came from Macedonians, while no Qin military or administrative personnel attempted to assassinate Ying Zheng. Through comparison, Christopher elucidates the cultural-political reasons for this. Qin courtiers had no incentive to assassinate their ruler, since their positions and influence were derived directly from him and because his death would have had little impact on his largely self-sustaining bureaucratic system. In contrast, Alexander’s conquests were “deeply personal” (p. 206) and only his death could bring an end to his wars. Alexander’s wars were contrary to the interests of the Macedonian aristocracy, but Ying Zheng’s were not, and his courtiers were “willing collaborators” (p. 213). Christopher persuasively argues that the difference lies in the structural nature of Ying Zheng’s autocracy versus the personal nature of Philip’s and Alexander’s. Overall, this extensive chapter is well argued, especially in its sections on expansion, self-divinisation, and assassination. The sections on population redistribution and free speech add less to the central argument, although they do contribute to the chapter’s comprehensive scope.
The monograph ends with a short epilogue-cum-conclusion, accompanied by a brief appendix on the ‘Persian question’, summarising how the book’s comparative approach illuminates the “personal-relational form of governance in operation in Macedon and the bureaucratic-institutional form of governance practised by Qin” (p. 216). It successfully demonstrates that their political structures were intimately informed by their culture, and one must understand the latter to comprehend the former.
This book is one of the finest comparative monographs to be published in recent years. Most admirably, it accords equal attention and depth to both cultures, making a significant contribution to both fields—a rare achievement, as even dedicated comparative scholars often incline to their original area of expertise. The work is clearly structured and cogently argued, with every chapter adhering closely to Christopher’s methodology in tracing the causes behind divergent outcomes arising from seemingly similar beginnings. Each chapter is also prefaced by a concise abstract and keywords, which guide the reader through the argument and greatly enhance the work’s overall clarity and accessibility. It is also meticulously written; the present reviewer noted no errors apart from a minor missed space on p. 34.[5] Christopher is to be commended for producing a brilliant monograph that firmly demonstrates the value of comparative studies.
Notes
[1] The first being Beck and Vankeerberghen 2024 (eds.), Place and Performance in Ancient Greece, Rome, and China.
[2] See Beck and Vankeerberghen 2021 (eds.), Rulers and Ruled in Ancient Greece, Rome, and China, for a recent edited volume on this theme.
[3] This review will follow Christopher’s usage, referring to the first emperor of China by his personal name rather than by the more familiar title Qin Shi Huangdi (lit. the First Emperor of Qin).
[4] See, for example, Shiji 6.41; cf. 6.14.
[5] “similarcapacity”