Argh such a disappointment.
The life of Alexander the Great, told in a "Alexander telling his story to a young chum" style, this should've been really great!
The story was still good, nice learning the basic facts, but the writing, man, sometimes there were just lists of "John went here with 10 men, Peter went there with 25 men on horses" which went on for half a page or more. As though Steven was trying to prove he did the research.
Should've been great.

3.5 stars. Historical fiction. Recommended for younger readers, just starting to learn about ancient military history. What I liked: good start and finish, the reconstructed battle strategies of Alexander’s most famous exploits, the creative description of Alexander’s ability to inspire and lead his countrymen and allies, outfight his most formidable foes, and intermittently govern conquered territories. What I didn’t like: long stretches were difficult to get through. I liked Stephen Pressfield’s book on Afghanistan better (The Afghan Campaign).

I imagine that if reading about ancient battle strategy is your happy place, this is a pretty darn good book.
I must say, though - after all the build-up to Gaugamela, I really didn't understand how the battle ended up resolving. Seemed like a miss to me.
Also, who rules the kingdoms while the kings are out battling for decades?

Edit: this was a rec from my dad, he said it's the best book he's read

Няма да мога докрай да се пренеса в тази книга. Макар да е повече военен трактат, отколкото каквото и да било друго - или, с по-прости думи, постоянно описание на бойни полета, армии, разположения и прочие - има нещо в самия образ на Александър, което малко ме отблъсква. Представен е като горд и велик военачалник, сам води разказа, украсява нещата доста талантливо... Но пък имаш и едно такова чувство, че е като някакъв надут пуяк, някак си... В главата му няма нищо друго, освен мисъл за войната. Може би и така трябва да бъде, но го прави допълнително суховат. А пък с каква любов си описва войниците, това вече е друга тема. Видимо е, че не съм в настроение за дълги военни походи, а такива съм преживявала, тъй да се каже, в немалко книги. Ако бях, книгата щеше да ми е безспорно приятна.

This was a well-researched novel about Alexander the Great from just before his father's assassination up to his death. It was just so tedious! Every chapter seemed like a list a numbers-how many infantry, cavalry, etc assigned to each battle and the amount of plunder afterwards. There were a few inspiring troop speeches but mainly it was all numbers. I did get a good idea of how driven Alexander was to accomplish so much in such a short time.

I actually liked this one more than I thought I would. I started reading it coming off the back of having read Mary Renault’s excellent Alexander trilogy not long before, which, for me, is the definitive Alexander fiction, and I went into this book feeling dubious as to whether it could compare. It couldn’t, but it wasn’t all that bad. I certainly enjoyed it more than I did Steven Pressfield’s Last of the Amazons, which was confusing, anachronistic, and had huge plotholes.

The voice of Alexander is the crucial factor in any novel tackling this historic person, presenting the author with the challenge of trying to capture his quixotic charisma, unusual intelligence, and powerful emotions. To my surprise, Pressfield actually does a reasonable job here… sort of. Let me explain. Other reviewers have praised the strength of descriptions of war in this book, and they’re dead on. The entire book reads like a series of anecdotes about battle, war, and the lessons Alexander has learned about being a commander. And it’s written well. The battle scenes are clearly described, if, at times, occasionally heavy on technical detail, and the anecdotes and snippets of wisdom are easily readable and page-turning. Alexander’s words of wisdom feel true to the historical figure’s intelligence and battle experience – so his “voice” did feel plausible here.

However, that’s all we get. The novel is very narrowly focused on just this one aspect, on the sequence of just one particular sort of event. I felt like Alexander the general was here… but Alexander the ruler, the dreamer, the man, was oddly absent. His charisma, personal dynamism, and human challenges felt like they were missing. I went through it at a good pace, enjoying the story, thinking it was quite well-written – but also missing those aspects that had been omitted. For me, the book didn’t capture the essence of Alexander, it just captured one strand in the essence of Alexander. Good, but it’s not going to supplant Mary Renault’s trilogy any time soon.

6 out of 10

This Alexander isn't very gay, or very megalomaniacal. He does kick ass, however, and take names, all the way to the Indus and back. Got yer Gaugamela right here, Darius.

Σαφώς πολύ καλύτερο από τα δύο προηγούμενα, μα τις... "Πύλες".... δεν τις περνάει!
Εκεί ο συγγραφέας ξεπέρασε και τον εαυτό του.

Струва ми се редно да кажа, че идеята за това да чета от 1л.ед.ч. за Александър Велики на мен ми се стори вълнуваща още от самото начало. Но ми беше наистина трудно да възприема събитията в сегашно време. Това е едно от малкото неща, към които изпитах дразнене в началото на четенето. Но истината е, че съвсем скоро след като започнах, спрях да отдавам толкова голямо значение на тези неща, а се потопих изцяло в историята. Защото стилът на писане на Стивън Пресфийлд го позволява. Авторът пише леко и увлекателно, когато говори Александър Велики като човек, приятел, цар. Проблемен обаче в книгата е пълководецът Александър Велики. В стремежа си да пресъздаде точно събитията, по мое мнение, авторът излишно натоварва описанията на битките с цифри, чинове, имена и подробности, относно разположението на частите на фронта, които скоро след това потъват в мъглата на самото значение на събитието...

Цялото ми мнение: https://faithisnodoubt.blogspot.com/2...

my fascination with Alexander the great started with this book. pressfield, as always depicts battles in a way that makes you feel like you were there with the burning desire to fight alongside those ancient heroes and achieve glory. as if that wasn't enough, the philosophies and lessons presented in this book on what it is too be a soldier and what it means to be a man were truly captivating and inspiring. great read!

Random notes:

Timeline: born in Pella 356 bc; book begins with Chaeronea 338 BC; father assassinated 336, Alex then becomes king and regains control of Greece; Granicus 334; Issus 333; Guagamela 331; Darius III dies 330; Alexander and his troops sturggle with success, he drunkenly kills Cleitus 328; Spitamenes (grey wolf?) dies 328 BC thus ending the campaign's "guerilla war" in Afghanistan; Indian campaign begins 327 bc; book ends with hydaspes 326 bc; Alexander dies in Babylon 323 bc

Alexander is portrayed paradoxically as a magnanimous warrior capable of incredible cruelty, which is reconciled with the concept of a daimon. Wikipedia notes that this concept is mentioned in Plato's apology - Socrates says he has "a daimonion that frequently warned him—in the form of a "voice"—against mistakes but never told him what to do." (no memory of this from prior reading late 2020) In this book, Alexander's daimon is like an inner force driving him forward, a force that must be contained lest he go too far. Also addressed through his empathy and friendship toward Hephaestion, who struggles with the barbarity of war.

The enumeration of troops and their respective commanders, sometimes covering entire pages and occurring before during and after every battle and skirmish, was not palatable. Alexander retelling his story to a page was kind of an interesting plot device, i initially found it off putting, but it grew on me.

There was an interesting exchange at the end when a greek actor Thessalus joins the campaign, initially comparing warfare and acting then describing how playwrights set up tragedies with misdirection and then reveal only at the end that the character has no one to blame but himself.

In the aftermath of Darius' death and conquering of persia, the campaign lost its purpose. They were fueled by retribution (past wrongs against greece committed by the achaemenid empire). Alexander however was obsessed with moving forward and pushed further east, as he replaced troops with locals the army lost their identity and ultimately grew tired of war, and the incredible success tore them apart.

quotes:
“This man has conquered the world! What have you done?"
The philosopher replied without an instant's hesitation, "I have conquered the need to conquer the world.”

“Every virtue that reaches the exaggeration, is becoming a defect”

for context - i read persian fire dec 2020, it discusses the second persian invasion of greece 480 bc; read in nov 2020 plato's apology detailing socrates trial 399 bc.

You would suppose that a book called Virtues of war would praise a war and Alexander of Macedonia would be a perfect protagonist of that. But in fact, this book shows horrors of war, In which Alexander was Great in conquest (and crimes). I confess that I have never admired this historical person (as well as other conquerors and warmongers). Despite this, I love Pressfield´s books.

But this particular one does not achieve quality of others. It is not because of the main protagonist. But by the narrative itself which is taken as Alexander´s memories when he is telling them to his officer. And it means that sometimes the story is detailed, sometimes very fast and skips across months and years.

Objectively, it is very-well written. Subjectively, the style did not fit me. Although Last of the Amazons has similar concept and that was really awesome. So if you like ancient history and military literature, add 1 star. If you like Alexander, you can add 2 stars. :)