I read here some ridiculous reviews (with all due respect). What do you expect from a novel about Alexander, that’s also entitled “The Virtues of War”...?

Correct! War, war and more war.

This is the best historical fiction I have ever read. It explains beautifully Alexander tactics and innovations, along with his crazy drive for grandeur. It’s History in the form of a novel. Beautiful.

This book does that without all the unnecessary garbage for the masses that severely hampers Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire”, I mean things that have nothing to do with war and come out weak and not really believable. The outcome of “The Virtues of War” is far superior in every facet.

A fictionalized account of Alexander's campaign across the known world. The battle descriptions in this book make it so fun to visualize every battle and watch it unfold from Alexander's point of view. Every battle starts with him breaking down the field, then describing what he thinks the enemy plans to do and how he will devise his strategy based on that information. Seeing the strategy broken down like this made every battle come alive.
Near the end it starts to drag a little but this coincides with Alexander's army's own feelings of exhaustion so it actually may have helped the narrative and one of the final chapters was my favorite of the book.
It's been awhile since I read Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire but I think I enjoyed this one even more. I would list The Legend of Bagger Vance as my favorite book by him but he has a long list of works I still need to read through.

Beautifully written and inspiring, showing both the horror and the glory of the war that took an army from Macedon to Afghanistan. I enjoyed every word and more so because of the emotion it showed, I never knew Alexander was such a loving man. Also I enjoyed the hearty praise for the martial life and the contempt for the luxurious, marking this as the difference between east and west.

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.

6/10

The first Pressfield novel I've read, and given his reputation, I was expecting a bit more. His writing is enjoyable, and he keeps the reader engaged in what many would consider a potentially boring historical account. I've always been fascinated by the life of Alexander, and Pressfield does an excellent job letting you in on his motivations, and the difficulty he faced. A decent book, and I will still try more of Pressfield in future, but I cant say this is an incredibly memorable book.

Yeah buddy, another striking title for the "oh yeah zone."

Love me Alexander.
Love me Macedon.
Love me conquest of the largest empire in the world.
'Ate Greeks.
'Ate Persians.
'Ate the Successor Kingdoms.

Men and women of the historical or "sharp end of the stick" professions will be right at home. Alexander waged a war worth fighting, and whatever his political ambitions or your thoughts on them, the man was a fantastic general. Lovers of the old world and its august past will hopefully see the humility and virtue of the conqueror whose name echoes throughout history.

There are three military commanders whom i hold in awe for their genius and prowess : Napoleon, Alexander & Julius Caesar. All men of different times and circumstances but whose feats of valor have still been unmatched in the annals of military history. I read upon the feats of these three men and cant help but think of what grandiose vision, what manic quest for glory drove them forward...Having read and liked Steven Pressfield's rendition of the Battle of Thermopylae here i was with 'Virtues of War'.

The tale is told from Alexander's point of view and it renders an objective analysis of his character impossible. We are given but snippets of his character as it goes from an ambitious young man to a conqueror swallowed by his own glory just by conversations from his comrades and commanders. It is a crack read at points where the battle scenes occur whether it be in Greece or Persia or India. The author sketches the battle scenes in all their bloody glory and grit. These scenes while the boon are also the bane of this book, Pressfield is well researched on ancient warfare but he lavishes the reader with details of the terrain,topography and military formations and these while enjoyed by a reader with a keen historic mind might not be well received by a reader looking for a crack action filled read.

Something the author carries forward from 'Gates of Fire' is that his soldiers while fierce and ruthless are also philosophers which is a mild amusement through the tale. Also this book is primarily on the military aspects of the man and not of his life : his alleged homosexuality, his relationship with women are but briefly touched upon and never given importance.It is slightly incomplete in those areas but then i suppose that is how the author wanted the book to be with a title like 'Virtues of War'.

Recommended for all those who love military history or just an action filled read...

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.

Most of what was known about Alexander was destroyed at Alexandria in 38 BC by the Romans but what we do know about his legendary exploits are on the scales of Achilles at Troy. If you saw the movie by Oliver Stone then you would think that Alexander was a horny bisexual who happened to conquer the known World. But according to Pressfield’s depiction he seeks to tame his desires in order to focus on conquest.
The book is a mastery telling of the greatest General who ever lived and Pressfield pieces together what might have been his train of thought in a brilliant Historical Fiction that lands on one of my all time FAVORITE books list. It focuses on his amazing generalship, his prowess for reading the battlefield, and his ability to make his men love him enough to follow him to the ends of the world.
The Ancient World held completely different virtues... humility was not even known to Greeks! The Romans were even worse! This the backdrop that helped me understand how radical the Hebrew God and their Messiah (Jesus) really were!
Stephen Pressfield is a Screenwriter So he writes his books in a style that is most conducive to our imaginations and keeps you captivated. At first the Antagonist seems to be Alexander’s nemesis, Darius the Persian, but after Darius is killed by treachery from his own men, you begin to realize that the real antagonist is Alexander’s Daemma... a concept foreign to the Western mind and more akin to “The Flesh” mentioned in Paul’s writings.
I rate this book 5 out of 5 because the writing does not seek to elevate the writers own ability to use words you never heard of. The battles are expressed in almost screenshot settings, concepts and traditions are explained so that you don’t have to be a Greek scholar to know what’s going on. An incredible read!

This novel tells the epic story of Alexander the Great. Alexander's military prowess is legendary; the book reflects that. The battles and many of the supporting scenes are fascinating, often riveting. Yet the book as a whole didn't captivate me. In part, this is because I didn't find Alexander likable. Brave, yes. Impressive, undoubtedly. But not likable, except in the depth of love he felt for his warhorse, Bucephalus, which was very moving. I wished the book conveyed a similar depth of feeling between Alexander and his human companions, such as Hephaestion, but, for me at least, it fell short of doing so.

I note that I found the conceit that Alexander was telling his story to Itanes, his young brother-in-law, unconvincing. Moreover, knowing in advance the scope of Alexander's success, and having the first-person narration emphasize this (by saying he won every battle he fought), reduced suspense. While my reaction to this book is mixed, I wholeheartedly love another of the author's books, "Gates of Fire," an account of the battle of Thermopylae. If you haven't read either book, I'd recommend "Gates of Fire" over "The Virtues of War."

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.

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...