If you like to read about military strategy,Alexander’s army formations,weaponry and tactics used on his biggest battles started from Greece and finished in India,you have it .Alexander was a great conqueror and unbelievable strategic indeed.

I have read this book exactly nine times. Enough said.

**Should Read as 4.5 Stars!**

Read this book in 2007, and its a wonderful standalone book about Alexander the Great.

This tale is set between the years 356 until 323 BC and it will the rise, the conqueror of the Persian Empire before he was 25, and the end of his life at the age of 32.

Alexander was a man of many talents, from the brutal avenger of his father's murder, a student to Aristotle, a commander of genius and the conqueror of nations.

This tale wonderful tale about Alexander is brought to us in a most enthralling fashion by the author, and in which Alexander is pictured in a real lifelike and warlike individual.

Highly recommended, for this is a splendid standalone book about Alexander the Great, and that's why I like to call this book: "An Impressive Alexander The Great"!

This my second Pressfield novel and is one of those books that inspired a lot of mixed feelings in me. I originally rated it four stars but I think I have to ultimately give it three. What it does, it does excellently, but what it lacks is totally nonexistent. While it does have a ton of fascinating information on Alexander's military and how he carved such a massive empire in a relatively short time without losing a single battle, it's almost impossible to engage on a personal level, which I really don't think is the author's fault and I'll do my best to explain why.

Alexander is brilliant and relentlessly shoved onward by what he calls his daimon, peeling apart and smashing the armies of the Greek, Persian, and Indian armies who stand against him, but he's also cold as ice. I felt like Pressfield tried to avoid this by including his interactions with his friend Hephaestion, and scenes of him getting all weepy over stuff. They don't work, and why should they? I don't think anyone has said that Alexander was a warm, compassionate humanist. He started a war with a pretty dubious casus belli and caused the deaths of so, so many people and the destabilization of a huge part of earth, as well as even managing to posthumously cause the wars of the Diadochi which caused even more death and chaos. Yet for some reason we kind of look at him in a romanticized, lover-warrior kind of view. The best reason for this that I can come up with is that he came from a Hellenistic culture and a lot of people, including myself, grew up with kind of this nice ideal of them which we don't have for similar cultures who raised gifted conquerors like the Huns, Mongols, etc.

At first I kind of balked at this calculating, alien portrayal of Alexander but then I realized that this is who these people were; they valued glory and power and catapulting themselves into legend through fire and death. This probably leaves very little room left for small-time stuff like compassion, rationality, selflessness, etc. All of this stuff still makes it a compelling portrait of what someone who achieved this kind of wide-scale subjugation might be like. I just had to resign myself to the fact that I wasn't gonna like Alexander.

That said...I still had a thrill in watching him take on such huge Persian armies and smash through them with his repeated uses of deception, feints, and insane cavalry charges straight at the enemy commander (often Darius himself) that basically cause every enemy on the field to shit their pants and stampede each other trying to get away. The battles are always, always fascinating as they present this huge picture of what Alexander is seeing in his head before, during, and after the fighting and Pressfield writes him as a very, very smart and talented soldier. I might be a little too hard on him, as he does obviously feel some remorse over Thebes and generally wasn't as hard on his conquered peoples and enemies as some, but overall a pretty icy and even disingenuous dude.

So another good one from Pressfield, just one that I had a relatively limited connection with--and that's probably how it should be. If you find yourself connecting too much with a person who killed thousands upon thousands of people and caused so much turmoil for an ultimately futile and kind of misguided cause, you're probably a little unbalanced--or the next Alexander the Great. Despite all that ranting I did about Alexander's character in this novel I still kept turning the pages and enjoying myself as I learned more about him once I let go of the desire to like him. Kind of makes me want to revisit another book with a character I thought turned into a totally murderous dick that ended up making me dislike the story; Conn Iggulden's Lords of the Bow, which is another credit to Pressfield. Two out of two so far, although certainly not as affecting as Gates of Fire, which all fans of historical fiction should probably give a shot if they haven't.

The Virtues of War is a masterful exploration of ancient warfare, weaving together history, philosophy, and vivid storytelling to create an engaging and thought-provoking narrative. From the campaigns of Alexander the Great to the battlefields of ancient Persia, the author delves deep into the psyche of warriors and leaders, offering profound insights into the virtues and vices that accompany the pursuit of conquest.

What sets this book apart is the author’s ability to bring history to life with his vivid prose and meticulous research. Whilst reading, I felt transported to the heart of ancient battles, experiencing the chaos and adrenaline of combat alongside legendary figures such as Alexander and Achilles. The author’s intimate understanding of military strategy and tactics shines through in every page, making this book a must-read for history buffs and military enthusiasts alike.

However, this is not a book for everyone. Its focus on ancient warfare and philosophical musings may not appeal to readers looking for a light or fast-paced read. Instead, this book is best suited for those who enjoy delving into the complexities of human nature and the art of war. Military history aficionados, scholars of ancient civilizations, and anyone interested in the timeless themes of honour, courage, and leadership will find this book to be a captivating and enriching read.

In conclusion, I found this book to be a compelling masterpiece that earns its place among the classics of military literature. With its impeccable research, gripping narrative, and profound insights, it deserves a full five-star rating and is highly recommended for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the virtues and complexities of warfare throughout history.

Steven Pressfield has the gift of speech, I end each book deeply moved, worshiping him and his characters and crying my heart out because every ending in so touching it moves me beyond myself. Thank you so much for your books, you imortatilize even more theese legends and make then even greater.

Pressfield chooses an interesting premise to tell the story of Alexander in Virtues of War: a tired, frustrated conqueror relates his memories to an aide in the weeks after turning back from his campaign in India.

What follows is a recounting of the major battles of Alexanders' career, beginning with a battle against the Thebans, then the champions of the Greek city states. As the narrative flows from battle to battle, Pressfied offers fascinating insights into Alexander's strategy, particularly his efforts to disguise his strategies until the perfect time to strike.

I had a general knowledge of Alexander before reading the book, but I learned a lot of details about Alexander's battles on his Asian campaign, in particular: Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. Pressfield wields a background in the Marine corps to frame believable scenes of ancient warfare.

Like many readers, I first became acquainted with Pressfield through his book on the Battle of Thermopylae, Gates of Fire. I would still recommend that book as an introduction to his oeuvre, as VOW is more technical, broader in scope. Still, this was a good read. One I will remember for a long time.

Like

Αφηγηματικό μυθιστόρημα το οποίο παρουσιάζει την εκστρατεία του μεγάλου στρατηλατη στην Ασία. Μικρές ανακρίβειες, οι οποίες σημειώνονται από τον ίδιο τον συγγραφέα στον πρόλογο, γίνονται εσκεμμένα. Τέσσερα αστέρια λόγω της χρήσης των μονάδων μέτρησης απόστασης της εποχής, γεγονός που κάνει δυσνόητο το μεγαθος του στρατού κατά την παράταξη για μάχη.

I have long been a devotee of Alexander the Great (my son's middle name is Alexander), so looked forward to reading this novel. I was not disappointed! The story is told from Alexander's viewpoint as he is telling his story to his young brother-in-law. It is not a complete story of his life. He does start the story before the assassination of his father, Phillip. Most of the remainder of the story tells of his conquest of Persia. Pressfield, who has written several other historical novels based in the era of Ancient Greece, obviously does his research very well. The description of the battles is excellent. The book is quite accurate, the author knows his subject. Even better, the narration sounds like it would actually be Alexander speaking, and giving his version of the various battles and incidents of his life (which may differ from the historical record). I wish the book had been longer and included more of Alexander's other accomplishments, such as the siege of Tyre, the conquering of Egypt, etc. Alexander was fascinating and what he did in his short life (died at 32) is amazing, especially considering the time period it took place in. This novel takes you into that time period, and makes you feel like Alexander is talking to you, sitting by a campfire after a hard days march.

Solidna knjiga. Radnja se desava iz Aleksandrovog ugla gledista. Pocetak knjige mi se bas dopao ali je iskreno radnja postala repetitivna u smislu: Aleksandrovi vojnici su smoreni i misle da nemaju sanse, Aleksandar pruzi snazan govor koji izaziva hrabrost vojnika, motivisani pobede bitku gde su visestruko nadbrojani, vojnici se ponasaju kao divljaci sa pljackom, ismevanjem neprijatelja i slicno pa se Aleksandar razocara u njih, oni su ponovo tuzni dok Aleksandar ne da jos jedan govor kako su ga izneverili ali da je i on izneverio njih i manje vise se ovo desava vise puta kroz knjigu. Ti govori jesu bili odlicno napisani, ali prosto su nekako izgubili tu moc koju su imali nadamnom kad sam ih citao prvih par puta. Delovi koji su davali imena dosta neprijateljskih vojskovodja su mi bili apsolutno bespotrebni jer ih 99% nisam zapamtio, a ove sto jesam, nisam primetio da su postali bitniji u nastavku knjige. Volim glorifikaciju stvari tako da mi se cela prica kako kralj iz Makedonije uspeva da osvoji Grcku i da je ujedini, da uzvrati Persiji udarac za robststvo svog naroda i da osvoji "ceo svet". Ovo je iskreno sumarizovana prica po mom ukusu. Kada je njegov konj Bukefal uginuo od umora i kad je nazvao grad Bukrfala po njemu, ostavio mi je mozda najjaci emotivni trenutak/utisak, pored svih njegovih govora i razmisljanja. Epilog govori o Aleksandrovoj smrti od bolesti kao i o beskrajnoj tugi koju je ostavila nad Grcima i Persijancima.
Knjiga je solidna, ali repetitivna sa jakim krajem. Stavio bih je malo iznad prosecne knjige, verovatno zato sto mi je ova tematika interesantna za citanje, tako da je sve subjektivno.
Ocena: 6.5/10

Recommended to me by Chris, one of my Graduate Student Instructors at Cal.
For all of his success, Alexander is a debated figure in history due to things like his drinking habit, burning Persepolis, and killing of one of closest generals. Pressfield frames his book in a way that makes the reader sympathize with Alexander and see him in a good light.
Pressfield does this by dividing Alexander's character into two sides. One being the virtuous man Alexander and the other 'Alexander' his daimon. The Ancient Greeks believe the daimon is a person's inner spirit and ambition. It is a good and bad thing. If not controlled properly a person's daimon can make a man a monster.
Pressfield frames Alexander's "non-virtuous" acts as Alexander losing control of his daimon, the same force that led him to his vast conquests. Pressfield weaves the story around this theme, of Alexander, and the people around him, trying to balance the two sides of Alexander's personality through their epic conquests.
This is a perspective I like, as I have a classical romantic view of Alexander the Great and want him to be remembered as a great man. Not for his flaws.
I was sad when Alexander died and the book ended. This is because I felt like Alexander was on the verge of coming to terms with his daimon, learning how to control it, and going to use it to rule his empire justly. However, as history tells Alexander died young before this could happen.
Overall an easy and enjoyable read I would recommend to anyone interested in ancient history.

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.