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 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.

Gee I very much enjoyed the book. It was pretty much as I expected. No fantastic literal achievement, but an honest straight forward, swashbuckling novel that reads quick. I do have two items to point out. 1) The book made me stop to pause a few times with the liberal use of modern language to convey action. The use of "highway" to describe paths was a chuckle. Surely an oversight? Hmmm. and 2) For a book that is promoted as, "The Virtues of War", ...why is there not one battle map? There should have been at least 2 to follow the action as described.

Last, I was left with the impression that this novel might have been better as a two or three book set of Alexander. Now that would have been a treat! To conclude, on the strength of this novel, I recommend this author and look forward to reading some other novels he has written.

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.

Really enjoyed this

I really enjoyed how adept the author was in describing the tactics used, the mentality of a conquerer and the connection to greek ancestry. I genuinely felt as if I were in the mind of Alexander the great. Excellent read. Why won't it let me submit? This has to be twenty words by now

still in love w Alexander after all these years

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.

Virtues of War is what its title suggests, a treatise on the personality characteristics and decision making process of great warriors. It is, in the guise of narrative fiction, an instruction manual for leaders of troops, and is incredibly effective at what it does. I only wish I had read it before assuming my first command.

Pressfield is a singular writer, and this is on offer in his ability to make Alexander, a historical figure so remote as to be deified, a sympathetic character who resonates with the reader. You may think it impossible to identify with the ruler of the entire western world, and the greatest tactician in history, but Pressfield enables you to pull it off, so that Alexander's longing and loneliness becomes your own. It makes the book at the same time mournful and triumphant, and it is definitely worth your time.

n  "I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life."n

I have lots of thoughts on this one, I will see if I can set myself the Herculean (or Alexandrian?) task of ordering them here.

First off, the framing device of a mature Alexander sitting by the campfire regaling young page boys with his manly triumphs couldn't help me thinking of the infamous "Canteen Boy" SNL sketch.


Is my beard too scratchy, Itanes?

Next, almost inevitably in books about Alexander III of Macedon you get plenty of juicy dialogue or mentions of his academic tutor, Aristotle. It's irresistible stuff for most authors, of course: one of history's greatest thinkers influencing a man who would go on to become on of history's greatest conquerors. The way this book is written, though, is as a soldier's memoir and Big A is focussed on passing on his experiences as a leader and a campaigner to his audience, not the inner workings of his soul or philosophical musings.


Looking for Aristotle Content?

There are scattered flashes of self-awareness but don't expect much else by way of humility from the world-conqueror. The Alexander who acts as narrator is arguably at the height of his powers, before the death of his beloved Hephaestion and still scheming to invade and subjugate every corner of the known world that has thus far escaped his passing. Expect a lot of discussion of his "Daimon", an inner demon more in keeping with the pagan Hellenic tradition that what you see in the Exorcist, as it possesses him to states of exultation and rage at seemingly minor triumphs, set-backs and slights.


Definitely a bro who gives himself his own "cool" nicknames

Ultimately it is a compelling narrative that neither lionizes nor demonizes the historical Alexander but attempts, as much as can be possible, to place him in his own context. I recommend.


I got you in my bleary sights, Romans!

A note on the Audiobook narrator: I can only wish I had a rich, sonorous baritone like John Lee but I feel his stentorian patrician cadence somehow didn't fit the first person perspective, particularly for scenes like when Alexander is delightedly recounting how some of the passes in the Hindu Kush were so steep they'd make a mule's asshole whistle from the effort of climbing them. But perhaps I'm just letting myself be too influenced by the memory of Colin Farrell's Irish bumpkin version of some years ago, which probably strayed too far to the other extreme.


It IS true that Alexander was said to be rather short and stocky...

My first experience of Pressfield, the weaving of great history and splendid writing, is something that I cannot express well enough. Some are historians, with dry and textual content. VERY few are incredible writers. Steven Pressfield holds talent in both areas. This book is a clear example of his gifts.
“From that day, I vowed never to squander a moment's care over the good opinion of others. May they rot in hell. You have heard of my abstemiousness in matters of food and sex. Here is why: I punished myself. If I caught my thoughts straying to another's opinion of me, I sent myself to bed without supper. As for women, I likewise permitted myself none. I missed no few meals, and no small pleasure, before I brought this vice under control.”
A young man's journey into the world of the military under Alexander is the thread. To comprehend the level of devotion and isolation and brutality, day after day and year after year, is hard for me, even as a military veteran. Leadership is paramount in the military. This book demonstrates both good and poor leadership. This book, like The Art of War, could be brought into the business world, as well as the family structure.
I rarely give five stars. but this is very much worthy.

“I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life.” This begins Pressfield’s exceptionally fascinating and readable story of Alexander the Great. This dramatic historical fiction account takes through Alexander’s early years of training and learning under his father’s—Philip of Macedon—rule through his final battles. After his father’s brutal assassination, no one thought Alexander could fill his father’s enormous shoes but he does that and much more. Feared by his enemies yet equally loved by his generals and comrades, readers witness the ethos Alexander lives his life—the Virtues of War!

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. :)