Absolutely the best fiction based on the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). Well researched and grounded in history, with interesting characters galore. Alcibiades is one of my favorite historical figures and this book really brings him to life.

For such a huge story over the course of almost thirty years, Pressfield chooses a confusing couple of protagonists to narrate his story. (And sometimes it is confusing to even figure out which narrator is telling the story or who's letters that narrator is reading.) Since the story of the Peloponnesian War revolves around Alcibiades and how his fortunes mirror the fortunes of Athens it is a strange decision to tell the story through actors who are mostly removed from the main character.

As great as Pressfield's previous ancient Greek work, Gates of Fire is, the secondhand related story makes sense because all the primary heroes of that tale are known to have perished during the climactic battle. Here it is simply confusing and never really gives us a good view of who Alcibiades is or what he was trying to achieve.

Throughout the story we are given a narrative that the democracy of Athens is only good at tearing down its heroes and putting them to death which is a pretty reductive look at Athenian government. A better story of this conflict would have been a personal story of Alcibiades and attempting to get into this fascinating character's head. Unfortunately, we don't get that and what we are left with is in need of a lot of editing and condensing.

Historically, I'm sure it is accurate and fun to read from that perspective, but I was looking more for a story that followed a single character or build up of the war into a climatic end, much like Gates of Fire. It was neither of those and hard to follow.

Τι εκπληκτικό ανάγνωσμα! Τι τέλεια ατμόσφαιρα, τι χαρακτήρες, τι πάθος! Και μέσα στις 600 τόσες υπέροχες σελίδες του, μπραφ! σκάει μύτη μία παράγραφος, μία, ανάθεμα το κεφάλι μου, και τα καταστρέφει όλα.

Όταν επί 600 σελίδες η ιστορική σου ακρίβεια είναι απίστευτα λεπτομερής και αποφασίζεις να στριμώξεις ανάμεσά τους έξι σειρές με την πιο απίστευτη μπούρδα που άκουσα ποτέ (κοντολογίς ότι οι Αθηναίοι δεν ήταν αρκετοί για να επανδρώσουν το ναυτικό τους, αλλά δεν πειράζει γιατί υπάρχουν τόσοι εξαιρετικοί Εβραίοι ναυτικοί για να τους αντικαταστήσουν ως μισθοφόροι, κι όλο αυτό δια στόματος Αλκιβιάδη) ε, τότε τι να πω, δεν αξίζεις τα πέντε αστεράκια. Απλά δεν τα αξίζεις.

Μιλάμε για την πρακτική της μορταδέλας εδώ. Αντί για ψηφοδέλτιο βάζεις στο φάκελο μια φέτα μορταδέλα, που θα λαδώσει και τα υπόλοιπα ψηφοδέλτια μέσα στην κάλπη. Μιλάμε τέτοιου μεγέθους απαξίωση των 600 σελίδων που έχεις ήδη γράψει, από μία ηλίθια παράγραφο.

Six-word Review: So so boring, how'd it happen?

I tried to wade through this overly detailed story of the Peloponnesian wars, focused on Athenian, later Spartan General and hero Alcibiades. Pressfield uses a similar approach to what he did in Gates of Fire, having the entire story narrated by Alcibiades’ bodyguard and assassin.

I really enjoyed Gates of Fire, Pressfield's story of Thermopylae, but here I was slogging through pages and pages of boring narrative with little hope for relief. About halfway through I gave up.

Good luck if you decide to try it.

Historical fiction, It brought an era to life, and provided an alternative insight. I love reading the historical genre because it gives me a base of knowledge about the history that has formed the world we're stuck in. I don't enjoy textbooks or dry non-fiction, so I turn to writers like Steven to personify history for me. I've found it enlightening to read books like Tides of War, then read about the historical accuracies and inaccuracies in them. A well written historical novel can be as entertaining as a well written piece of contemporary fiction, and Pressfield was very good at weaving his character(s) into actual historical events. You get a great story and learn a bit about history all at the same time. In essence, historical fiction gives you access to learn about interesting times in history, but also blends elements of entertainment and story telling, often not found in pure historical books. Think Band of Brothers rather than a D-Day Documentary. Both have merit, but one can be more entertaining, and I find that makes them a gateway to wanting to learn more about history for me.

Pressfield was the best in this Genre (Ancient Historical Fiction). He was a historian and he has done the leg work and research and it showed in his books. When he made reference to a military unit from like 80 BC, you can bet that such a military unit existed at the time. For Instance, in his book about Alexander the Great (Fortunes of War) he talked about how Alexander used his renowned Champion Cavalry to out maneuver and flank his opponents. They did not expect this, because they were used to fighting in dense phalanx formation. The thing that I liked most about his books, there was always a character or two that I felt like me. I felt almost as though as he was writing about me (in a past life kind of way).

I regret to say, as well written as this novel is, the premise was an outright justification for war, based on a misguided notion of glory. The Tides of War, I wanted to learn more about the Peloponnesian War and the Greek leader, Alcibiades. I really enjoyed the book which centered around Alcibiades and his part in the war, which was told by his bodyguard. You learn about how great of a general he was throughout history, but I think Pressfield made him out as kind of glory hound which he might have been. I enjoy history. I think we understand who we are by understanding where we've come from. Also, biographical history is interesting in its exploration of human nature. Pressfield explored one of the most intriguing figures of Greek history, Alcibiades, who was constantly changing sides and trading loyalties. I think his premise was to explore how such a person justified such treachery to oneself. The book also introduced me to an area of history I was not familiar with, the Peloponnesian War. In the book, I got an education and was provoked to think about the justifications we use for our behavior.

Like many books on war it was violent in places and also explored the longing for peace of warriors who saw so much bloodshed. [Maybe it can help some of our vets coming home from contemporary wars.] In that respect the book is not a fun or pleasant read, but it certainly can stretch your perspective.

Not quite as good as Gates of Fire, but nevertheless enjoyable.

It seems churlish to give a book with so many virtues only 3 stars but frankly it was a slog through the middle section and there were aspects that annoyed me from the outset. But let me start with the positives. In this book Pressfield offers a sweeping portrayal of the ebb and flow of much of the Peloponnesian from an Athenian perspective, the complex and competing relationships of the Greek city states and the part played in the fate of Athens by the primitive form of democracy of that city (which we sometimes unthinking idolise).In doing this the author casts a light on modern democracy and its manipulation (seen more clearly in recent years long after the book was written) by wealthy demagogues and unscrupulous populists. Historically he helped fill in for me some gaps in my knowledge and prompted me to go learn more, especially about Alcibiades and Socrates and their trials and deaths. Pressfield is at his best however in the brutal cut and thrust of ancient battle painting a vivid and accurate picture not only of the tactics employed but the experience of those in the midst of the melee. However the narrative was perhaps too drawn out for a single book, without having a sufficiently well-drawn central character to sustain interest. In the hands of a Cornwell or Scarrow I could see this being an interesting series of books focused on Pommo, with Alcibiades and Socrates as returning characters. The detachment from the main characters was not helped by the fact that this was portrayed as the author telling his grandfather's story, largely (but not exclusively) of a former client, who in turn was largely interested in the life and date of Alcibiades as it related to his own. This unnecessarily complex narrative structure made it hard to get to any sense of the authenticity of any character's portrayal. There were also a few authorial choices that annoyed me, especially (and I can't remember whether he did the same with Gates of Fire), his decision to use the anachronistic terms "God, heaven and hell." I can't understand why an author so dedicated to conveying largely accurate details of Athenian politics and military history would dodge the all-pervading complexity of Greek religion and their diverse pantheon. Overall, disappointing after enjoying my previous outing with Pressfield to Thermopylae.

I really enjoyed Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire”, a 5-star read about the Battle of Thermopylae. I wish I could say the same about this book. In short, I was disappointed. It’s another historical novel about ancient Greece. This time about the Peloponnesian War, around 400 BC. It’s told by a man recounting a conversation with his grandfather. The author relates - I should say spews out - a lot of complex history. And I mean A LOT information. I felt as if Pressfield was jamming a college semester’s worth of Greek history into one single story. Heck, I like this stuff but I still felt a bit overwhelmed. I thought it was a difficult read and often needed a map to follow along. OK, I’ll admit that it’s probably me … I was looking for a novel that would educate me via the story. It is interesting history - Athens versus Sparta, cities under siege, plagues, unscrupulous leaders, politics, war - but it was too much history and not enough story/plot. I struggled to finish it.

This book was fascinating and really opened my eyes to the vastness of Greek history of which I am quite ignorant. Upon completion I am now hungry to understand more of the historical background to this novel. The character of Alcibiades, if not historical, would have been totally unbelievable! He is such a dynamic character that it is difficult to believe in the veracity of his existence and I am amazed that he is not a more notorious historical figure.

This book challenged my understanding of history, gave me valuable insights into democracy, helped me to consider interpersonal relationships with people of influence and was an all around compelling book. The one aspect of the book that I disliked was the somewhat confusing nature of the narrator (s). The main of the story was told from Jordan recounting stories to his grandson as told to him by Polemodies, concerning Alcibiades. Confusing in itself but also segmented by a few other "guest" narrators. While I understand the boon of inserting a fictional narrator to bridge the gap between the historic and the fictitious, I believe this application was overly cumbersome.

Ζόφος. Ζοφερό και απομυθοποιημενο. Τίποτα το ηρωικό. Θλίψη. Γιατί αυτοκτονούν οι λαοί; ίσως την απάντηση την δίνει ο Θουκυδίδης: "τον έδιωξαν από το στρατόπεδο. Ήταν πολύ μεγάλος, βλέπεις. Όλοι έδειχναν νάνοι μπροστά του". Όποιος είναι καλύτερος, όποιος ξεχωρίζει πρέπει να τον κονταινουμε κι ας πάει κατά διαόλου η χώρα. Να δηλητηριασουμε το πηγάδι του γείτονα κι ας δηλητηριαστει και το δικό μας. Σίγουρα το έχουν κι άλλοι λαοί αλλά τόσο πολύ σαν και μας δεν ξέρω.

Brilliant historical fiction, obviously heavily researched combined with excellent storytelling. Glimpses of Socrates and early democracy give the book an intellectual aspect often not found in a war novel.