Pressfield knows his stuff and it’s a well-written enough account of Alexander’s campaign. Pressfield is essentially a master of historical prose.

This book is just really boring and slow for a barely 300-pager. Alexander isn’t likeable and the premise of the book (virtues found in war/mindset of a commander) doesn’t seem very lasting, urgent or important. The side characters lack charm and are all the same. The characters and themes pale in comparison to Pressfield’s masterpiece “Gates of Fire”, which might be an unfair standard but this book is just really boring.

I picked this because I LOVED❤️ Steven's non fiction. I also love listening to him talk about writing.

This book however, is painfully dull. I couldn't read past a hundred pages.
Maybe, I'm not the target audience for this stuff. This was the first historical fiction I ever read and it has way too many 'historical' qualities than it has 'fictional'.
The characters are stuff too. Though, if you're interested in battle tactics and history, you might like this.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad book, but I didn't feel ANY emotion while reading this

Engaging and visceral historical fiction novel that inventively retells the life and military campaigns of Alexander the great. Vividly bringing to life ancient martial manoeuvres and adaptive tactics in fascinating detail. Excellent character development humanises his arch enemy Darius and shows Alexander dreamt of an empire of tolerance beyond parochial differences - but was contradictory to this, and capable of extreme brutality if required for forging his new empire.

Alexander the Great. Even the name by which we reference him conjures up a person larger than life. A man who was tutored by Aristotle himself and ascended to his father’s throne at 20 years old. By the time he was 30, he ruled over one of the largest empires in history, a true warrior king who was undefeated in battle. One would think he would have found satisfaction, but as anyone familiar with the introduction to Ecclesiastes knows, sometimes getting everything you want can be one of the worst things that can happen.

But who was Alexander, the man? As we read in this insanely well-researched novelization of Alexander’s life, he knew the people in his army. He was lavish in his praise and reward of his men. In return, his people loved him, some even going so far as to see him as one of the gods.

After reading this book, you will know Alexander the man much better than you will from simply reading his military exploits, although there is incredible information on these, as well. There were a few places where the pacing was a little slow, but Pressfield’s battle descriptions are very detailed and draw you in so that you feel like you’re on the field. Granted, some of the historical spaces are filled with artistic license, but I learned more about Alexander the Great and his campaigns—not to mention the cost of victory—than I thought possible.

If you’re interested in the history of Alexander the Great or this time period in general, read this book.

Wouldn't it be neat to have an interview with Alexander the Great in which he tells of his life as a soldier in a very introspective manner. Short of a time machine, this novel provides the next best thing thanks to Steven Pressfield's ability to crawl inside the mind of the world's greatest conqueror. The story as told in Alexander's voice covers the spectrum of language from noble rhetoric to earthy solder's vernacular as it narrates the stories of horror and triumph. The battles are described vividly and concisely. The flow of the narrative congers up within the reader the visceral excitement and fear of an outnumbered military force confident of their ability to prevail in spite of impossible odds.

Their subsequent problems related to trying to govern the conquered territories is also told in a most engaging way. It's interesting to note that some of the problems Alexander faced in the areas we today call Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan had vague similarities to current difficulties in those regions. The winner of the military battles often times is overwhelmed by the subsequent political and cultural conflicts.

How can there be any virtue in something as terrible as war? That was my first response to the book's title. There's enough gore and cruelty described in this book for a 21st Century reader to find it to be an anti-war tale. After the victory over Persia, it was difficult for Alexander to maintain the moral of his army. The virtue of war as seen from his perspective is that it gives men a sense of purpose and a goal to work toward. I think his thinking is summarized in the following quotation from the book in which Alexander reflects on the Battle of Hydaspes, his last major victory.

"Let me speak instead to the significance of the fight. What it meant to me and to the army. It was everything we needed---a contest of heroic scale against a foe who stood his ground and dueled with honor. At conflict's end, the field was ours, indeed, but, far more important, we had preserved our antagonist Porus's life and the lives of as many of his Ksatriyas as possible; we had been able to act toward him and them with integrity and restraint; and we had conquered not only a stubborn and manful foe but our own factious and recalcitrant selves."

A case can be made that Alexander the Great made the greatest impact on human history of any single person. It's difficult to imagine the history of Western Civilization without his exploits. The golden age of Greek may very well have been lost to history if Alexander hadn't made Greek culture the standard for Western Civilization. Without the foundation of Greek culture the Roman Empire may have never existed, at least not as we know it. And without the Roman Empire, what would have been the history of the western world? In that regard, Alexander was successful based on his own goals. The following quote from the book is of Alexander scolding his troops for plundering after the Battle of Issus.

"Do we march for plunder, brothers? Is gold our aim, Like merchants? By Zeus, I will cut my own throat if you tell me you believe that. It is enough to rout the foe, to prove ourselves the greater Brutes? Then build my pyre. I will kindle it myself before yielding to such want of imagination and such deficit of desire. Fame Imperishable and glory that will never die -- that is what we march for! To light that flame that death itself cannot quench. That I will achieve, and by the sword of Almighty Zeus, you will work it with me, every one of you! "

In Mr. Pressfield's parlance, Alexander felt within himself the existence of a "daimon." Alexander's voice returns to reflect on his inner daimon numerous times during the book's narrative. I have subsequently researched that term to try to see what the author, through Alexander's voice, was trying to say with it. It is true that "daimon" is the Greek derivative for the English word "demon." However, in the context of ancient Greek culture it was more likely considered to be an intermediary spirit between humans and the gods. Therefore, Alexander would have perceived it as an inner spirit that provided divine guidance telling him when he needed to take action on certain issues.

One thing I appreciated about the author is that he provided a "Note to the Reader" at the beginning of the book where he acknowledged several places in the book where he deviated from recorded history. He explains that he did it in the interest of the theme and the storytelling. I think Alexander would agree with the changes. At the very least it saves the reader the need to worry about the deviations. Steven Pressfield discusses the relationship between fact and fiction in the writing of historical novels in his author's forum at the following address:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...
In "message 2" at the above address he gives a specific example from the book, The Virtues of War.

Alexander was very much a tyrant when judged by modern standards. It's interesting to note that the Greeks of Athens and Sparta didn't consider Alexander to be Greek. To them he was Macedonian. When Alexander left Greece to conquer the east, he needed to leave half is forces at home to maintain control of the home country. It's interesting to note how often the tyrant ends up being an outsider to the home country. Some recent examples are; (1) Napoleon was Corsican, (2) Stalin was Georgian, and (3) Hitler was Austrian.

The following short review is from the 2007 Book Lover's Calendar:
HISTORICAL FICTION
Novelist Steven Pressfield’s beat is the classical world at war. He’s covered Sparta (Gates of Fire; Bantam, 1999) and Greece (Tides of War; Bantam, 2001), and now he tackles Macedonia, in a novel about Alexander the Great. A writer specializing in the grit and gore of ancient battlefields and the glory of conquest could have no better subject.
n  THE VIRTUES OF WAR: A NOVEL OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT,n by Steven Pressfield (Bantam, 2005) Aspiring writers should not miss Pressfield’s thoughts on his craft, The War of Art (Warner Books, 2003). A pithy, wise, inspirational guide whose novel thesis is that art is war.

Not as good as The Gates of Fire.


Quotes:

"Those who do not understand war believe it contention between armies, friend against foe. No. Rather friend and foe duel as one against an unseen antagonist, whose name is Fear, and seek, even entwined in death, to mount to that promontory whose ensign is honor."

""Does it hurt?" he bawled, spurring up in the flush of victory, and when I answered yes, he roared, "Good, it's supposed to!""

"There are further items, Telamon taught, which have no place in the soldier's kit. Hope is one. Thought for future or past. Fear. Remorse. Hesitation."

"For the self-control of the warrior, which we observe and admire in his comportment, is but the outward manifestation on the inner perfection of the man. Such virtues as patience, courage, selflessness, which the soldier seems to have acquired for the purpose of defeating the foe, are in truth for use against enemies within himself - the eternal antagonists of inattention, greed, sloth, self-conceit, and so on. When each of us recognizes, as we must, that we too are engaged in this struggle, we find ourselves drawn to the warrior, as the acolyte to the seer. The true man-at-arms, in fact, can overcome his enemy without even striking a blow, simply by the example of his virtue. In fact he can not only defeat this foe but also make him his willing friend and ally, and even, if he wishes, his slave."

"But tell me, my son, how will Achilles of old fare in our modern era's corrupt and inglorious affrays?
He will elevate them, Father, by his virtue and by the purity of his purpose. And where he stands, even in this degraded latter day, shall be a noble world and uncorrupted."

"He who would wake must cease to dream."

"We have all seen zealots and fanatics, eager for death. These men are not that. They are rational men, defenders of their homes and families, who simply would not quit. We make out faces of individuals now. Their postures of devotion, each true to his mates and his corps, derive from that code to which we, too, have sworn allegiance. Not a man speaks, yet each of us of Macedon, beholding the exhaustion and soul-spentness of these warriors, understands that they have fought, this day, upon a plane that we have not. They have given more than we. They have suffered more than we. And we reckon, too, that if we aim, as we do, to cross to Asia and overturn the order of the earth, we must mount to that sphere of sacrifice that we read now upon their beaten, shattered visages. This knowledge sobers us. Our hatred is supplanted by compassion, even love."

"You could have eaten the lion's heart, my son. But you gave it back to him. He will hate you for it, I fear. You will pay on another day for this act of misplaced chivalry."

"He is not me, but a creature to whom I am bound. It is as if this thing called 'Alexander' has been twinned with me at birth, fully formed, and that I only now discover it, aspect by aspect, as I grow. This 'Alexander' is greater than I. Crueler than I. He knows rages I cannot fathom and dreams beyond what my heart can compass. He is cold and canny, brilliant and ruthless and without fear. He is inhuman. A monster indeed, not as Achilles was, or Agamemnon, both of whom were blind to their own monstrousness. No, this 'Alexander' knows what he is, and of what he is capable. He is I, more an I myself, and I am indivisible from him. I fear I must become him, or be consumed by him."

"Eventually it came to me that, rather than endure them beneath compulsion, which rendered them doubly abhorrent, I would elect to do them on my own."

"Men believe a boy's concerns to be those of a child. Nothing could be further from the fact. At ten I apprehended the world as keenly as I do today, more so, as my instincts had not yet been dulled by schooling and the stultifying superimposition of conventional thought."

"Do you think me vain or self-inflated? Consider" What has Almighty Zeus portioned out for man, save this earth? Heaven He has kept for Himself. But this sphere here, beneath this sky, we mortals may roam with naught to hem us but our own will and imagination. Do you know what faculty I claim in myself as preeminent beyond all rivals? Not warcraft or conquest. Certainly not politics. Imagination."

"Mark this, my young friend. Sear it into your soul with brands of iron: Never, never take anything for granted. Never believe you know, so that you cease to probe and query."

"What I want you to apprehend, Itanes, is the concept of effective strength. The enemy outnumbers us nearly five to one, yet where the action is decisive, we, not they, possess numerical superiority."

"His gift to me is a teak box, inlaid with ivory and gold. For a thousand years lords of the Punjab - he explains through an interpreter - have been presented with such a casket on the morn of their accession.
"What does one keep in it?"
"Nothing." The box is meant, Porus declares, to remind the sovereign of man's proper portion."

"Always attack. Even in defense, attack. The attacking arm possesses the initiative and this commands the action. To attack makes me brave; to defend makes them timorous."

"When deliberating, think in campaigns and not battles; in wars and not campaigns; in ultimate conquest and not wars."

"Seek the decisive battle. What good does it do us win ten scraps of no consequence if we lose the one that counts? I want to fight battles that decide the fate of empires."

"It is as important to win morally as to win militarily. By which I mean our victories must break the foe's heart and tear from him all hope of contesting us again. I do not wish to fight war upon war, but by war to produce such a peace as will admit of no insurrection."

"The objective of campaign is to bring about a battle that will prove decisive. We feint; we maneuvers; we provoke to one end: to compel the foe to face us in the field."

"As commanders, we must save our supreme ruthlessness for ourselves. Before we make any more in the face of the enemy, we must ask ourselves, free of vanity and self-deception, how the foe will counter. Unearth every stroke and have an answer for it. Even when you think you have thought of everything, there will be more work to do. Be merciless with yourself, for every careless act is paid for in our own blood and the blood of our countrymen."

"No advantage in war is greater than speed. To appear suddenly in strength where the enemy least expects you overawes him and throws him into consternation."

"All tactics in conventional warfare seek to produce this single result: a breakthrough in the enemy line."

"A static defensive line is always vulnerable. Once penetrated in force at any point, every other post on the line becomes moot. Its men cannot bring their arms to bear and, in fact, can do nothing except wait in impotence to be overrun by their own comrades fleeing in panic as our penetrating force rolls them up form the flank."

"Be conservative until the crucial moment. Then strike with all the violence you possess."

"Don't punch; counterpunch. The purpose of an initial evolution - a feint or draw - is to provoke the enemy into commiting himself prematurely. Once he moves, we countermove."

"An office must lead from the front. How can we ask our soldiers to risk death if we ourselves shrink from hazard?"

"War is academic only on the mapboard. In the field it is all emotion."

"Entering an territory, capture the wine stocks and breweries first. An army without spirits is prey to disgruntlement and insurrection."

"A cavalryman's horse should be smarter than he is. But the horse must never be allowed to know this."

"Heaven speaks with the same voice in Memphis and in Macedon; I despise the man, however learned, who does not grant this. God is God, in whatever form He chooses to appear."

"How is one to command? By consensus of his subordinates? Listen indeed. Weigh and evaluate. Then decide yourself. Are you stumped at the crossroads? Pick one way and don't look back. Nothing is worse than indecision. Be wrong, but be wrong decisively."

"All that being said, how does one make decisions? By rationality? My tutor Aristotle could classify the world, but couldn't find his way to the village square. One must dive deeper than reason. The Thracians of Bithynia trust no decision unless they make it drunk. They know something we don't. A lion never makes a bad decision. Is he guided by reason? Is an eagle "rational"? Rationality is superstition by another name."

"The temptation is to stop thinking and yield to momentum. This must be resisted at all costs."

"Sweat, speed, action - these are the antidotes to fear."

"Nothing so steadies a company confronting great odds as a sober recitation of the facts. The more dread-inducing the reality, the more directly must be faced."

"This is an article of faith with me, brothers. I believe that a man, witnessing the selflessness of another, is compelled by his own nobler nature to emulate that virtue. No harangue can make him do this; no prize or bounty. But the sight of his fellow;s gallantry cannot be resisted. This is why your officers must always be first to strike the foe. By your example, you compel the hearts of your men to follow. And their courage ignites valor in the ranks of our countrymen succeeding."

"Do we make war for blood or treasure? Never! But to follow the path of honor, to school our hearts in the virtues of strife. To contend chivalrously against the chivalrous for refines us, as gold in the crucible. All that is base in our natures - cupidity and greed, timorousness and irresolution, impatience, niggardlines, self-infatuation - is processed and purified. By our repeated undergoings of trial of death, we burn these impurities out, until our metal rings sound and true. Nor are we ourselves, as individuals only, purified by this ordeal, but its demands bind us to one another at such a depth of intimacy as not even husband and wife can know. When I call you brothers, it is no figure of speech. For we have become brothers in arms, you and I, and not hell itself holds the power to divide us."

"A million men stand in arms against us. I will rout them by my will alone."

"The ordeal of command consists in this: that one makes decisions of fatal consequence based on ludicrously inadequate intelligence."

"He has demanded everything of me, and, receiving it, has borne me beyond myself."

"This victory has brought us back. We are ourselves again. Nothing else matters. Believe in our destiny and press on. No force on earth can stop us now!"

Alexandre, o Grande (356-323 a. C.) ascendeu ao trono da Macedónia com apenas vinte anos de idade. Travou as suas mais importantes batalhas - incluindo a conquista do Império Persa - antes dos vinte e cinco, e morreu com apenas 32 anos. No entanto, o seu legado permanece e é impossível ficar indiferente a semelhante figura histórica.

Esta obra inicia com Alexandre já fazendo parte do exército do seu pai, Filipe da Macedónia.
Ainda que não seja uma biografia de Alexandre -que era o que esperava - ficamos a conhecer o seu extraordinário carácter, mas também a sua genialidade como estratega militar.
As descrições das batalhas e armamento, bem como estratégias militares são bastante descritivas e minuciosamente detalhadas, pelo que não foi uma que me prendeu por isso mesmo.
Acabei por ler bastante na diagonal, ficando a perceber quais as batalhas preponderantes para Alexandre traçar o seu caminho.
Ainda que seguisse as pisadas de seu pai, Alexandre tinha uma ânsia de conquista sem igual, e o seu carácter permitiu que os povos conquistados o respeitassem acima de tudo.
Apesar de inimigos, Alexandre e Dario III tinham um respeito mútuo um pelo outro e isso é revelado neste livro.
Outra das figuras incontornáveis do círculo de Alexandre é Heféstio, que aqui é referido como sendo o melhor e grande amigo de Alexandre, contrariamente às crenças especulativas de que ambos seriam um casal. [Esta relação permanece dúbia, no entanto, continuo a preferir acreditar que seriam mais que amigos.]

Assim sendo, foi uma obra de que não me deu de todo o que esperava, no entanto, corresponde ao que se propõe: uma obra essencialmente bélica sobre o brilhantismo militar de Alexandre, o Grande. Daí que não atribua uma classificação, pois estaria a ser injusta visto que descrições bélicas tão detalhadas não são de todo para mim.

I generally like my historical fiction from the first person perspective, but not from the point of view of the grand historical figures themselves as is done here. Alexander, Socrates and Alcibiades are made deliciously tantalizing in the care of Mary Renault and the latter by Pressfield himself in Tides of War.

But preference aside, this is indeed as close to Alexander's voice as could be contrived.

"Like them, the daimon knows no pity. Like them he owns no fear of death. You have asked, Itanes, if the daimon is properly identified with the soul. He is not. The daimon and the self are subordinate to the soul, but the daimon, should he overcome the self, may abrogate the soul. At that point a man becomes a monster."

Tremendous.

As usual Pressfield writes brilliantly, though this isnt one of his best. It was much more exploratory of the philosophy and mindset of warriors than of the story of the men. Of course, middling Pressfield is still better than most.

A great book about an even greater warrior! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this account of Alexander the Great. Instantly, it was 327 BC, and I was standing alongside him in the most fierce battles—fast-paced, storytelling account of one of the most feared warriors, King and most certainly, legend. Historically correct from what I can remember. Wait, where's my chariot?

Steven Pressfield does it again with this haunting tale of Alexander the Great. I believe this book was released the same year as the Alexander movie starring Collin Farrell, and fans of the movie would probably enjoy this book as well. Both painted a vivid picture of Alexander's life through a brilliant narrative. Some of the battle sequences were written as if Pressfield was sitting astride his own mount on the periphery of the battlefield. Spectacular technical description was combined flawlessly with gruesome action.

The sarissa's song is a sad song
He pipes it soft and low.
I would ply a gentler trade, says he,
But war is all I know.

In case you are curious as to what a "sarissa" is, the link below shows one in all its glory and illustrates why Alexander's army was so terrible to face on the field. The Macedonian and his sarissa are on the left*

http://slinging.org/forum/yabbfiles/A...

Pick this one up if you enjoy fiction involving history, war, military life, biography, philosophy ... bah just read it!

Five stars all the way.

Get your copy here: https://amzn.to/2juW3n9

I dropped the book after reading more than 300 pages of it, which is not something I do often. It was, however, in turns frustrating and boring, and - after Gaugamela - I couldn't even bring myself to care if and how Alexander defeats Porus. [Spoiler alert: Alexander died without ever losing a battle.] When I say the book was boring, however, I don't mean boring in the sense of ponderous, verbose or over-descriptive. On the contrary, "The Virtues of War" was awfully concise. To the point of being superficial. But more on that later.

Here are the reasons I think "The Virtues of War" fails both as a historical account and as a fictional novel.

1. Alexander the Great. When you hear that name, what do you think of? I won't even bother guessing. The name's so famous that you could associate it with practically anything, from actual historical events to kitchen aprons. But if you've read anything about the man, you will not be able to suspend your disbelief at his characterization in this book for long. Pressfield's Alexander is a humble, benevolent, unassuming guy whose ambitions don't go beyond good soldering and who - as he'll tell you on the very first pages of the book - ascribes his success entirely to the men he's leading. Yeah, that sounds exactly like the man who believed himself to be (the son of) a god, forced his lifelong companions to prostrate themselves before him, burned down Persepolis after getting drunk at a feast and may or may not have murdered his own father. Pressfield's Alexander doesn't seem to suffer from megalomania, paranoia or delusions of grandeur, is strictly heterosexual (bordering on asexual, actually... yes, we're still talking about Alexander the Great) and loves people (in a platonic way) more than Jesus Christ (allegedly) does.

I can't say I'm too impressed by this version of Alexander but, in the end, it wasn't what made me drop the book. Let's continue to...

2. The rest of the characters. Or lack thereof. Yes, there were some names thrown around. Some of the names even said some words. Some of the names even did some things that could be considered heroic. But, in the end, that's all the names were. Names. No characterization of anyone whatsoever, beyond psychical descriptions (even those were sparse) and accounts of martial prowess. I can't say the characters are two-dimensional because that implies that they have some dimensions and are not just names repeated often on a page. Pressfield is so economic in his characterization that the reader is left not caring what happens to any of the names at all.

3. Failing number three is, surprisingly for anyone familiar with Steven Pressfield, his description of war. I don't mean that it is poorly described. In fact, it's anything but. Military strategy and battle descriptions are the one aspect where this books shines. The battles are engaging and brilliantly written (though not on Conn Iggulden's level of vivid detail, clarity and suspension). Why do I consider this aspect to also be a failing of the book, then? Simple. I cannot suffer the glorification of war apparent in both this book and "Gates of Fire" (although, to be fair, GfF did try to show the horrors of war as well as its 'virtues'). War is not purifying. It is not virtuous. It is not the most noble of human inventions... I usually love nothing better than trying to acquire the mindsets of different people as I read the books they've written - it's refreshing to look at the world from perspectives other than my own. The mindset of the soldiers in this book is something I never wish to acquire. It's the mindset of the brainwashed patriot and the religious zealot.

4. Finally, the world and how lazily it's depicted. Everything is black or white. Steven Pressfield is very careful to make the distinction between West and East. You see, the West was so much more civilized than the East, even in ancient times. Let's completely forget that the entire social system of the West (always capital 'W' in Steven Pressfield's book) is based upon slavery. Let's forget that the Western world at that time has just gone through the Peloponnesian war that has torn Greece apart. Let's forget that the beautiful democracies and monarchies we see in the big cities anywhere - west, north, south or east - rely upon ninety percent of the population working in the fields and never leaving the farms until death or sickness or war do them apart. But forget all this. Think, instead, of how horrible the East (always capital 'E') is - with its empires and kings and oppressed farmers. Pressfield actually has Alexander talk to a Persian farmer (in a manner that is not entirely clear, seeing as Alexander doesn't speak Persian and the farmer certainly doesn't speak Greek) and feeling pity because of the tyranny and oppression the man has to endure. He then proceeds to be disgusted by the corrupted aristocracy of the East and the fact that no man in the East can advance his station. This, coming from a character that's supposed to have been brought up in a culture where slavery is accepted, his father is a famous conqueror and he himself is a prince who inherits his position by right of birth. I doubt that the author is intentionally trying to paint Alexander as horribly lacking in self-awareness, so I can't say I'm impressed with this portrayal of the Persian empire. Life was difficult for anyone not born in a city - in Greece, in Persia, in Egypt, everywhere

I will leave just two quotes below:

"This is the East. On the right hand, one beholds opulence beyond imagination; on the left, destitution that beggars description. The long-suffering of the peasantry approaches the holy. Their carriage and bearing possess a dignity unmatched even by kings of the West. But it is the dignity of a stone, weathering centuries, not of a man, descended of heaven."

"In the East there exists no objective standard of achievement, no impartial measure by which a man may establish or advance his station. He cannot 'get ahead.' He cannot 'succeed.' It is not like the egalitarianism of your army, Alexander, which provides an unbiased arena, within which a poor man may make his fortune and a rich man prove worthy of his fame. Here no man exists, save in subordination to another."

Two stars.