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?

The novel was fairly interesting, but far from Pressfield's best. I thought he reached his apogee with Gates of Fire or possibly Afghan Campaign.

This story begins with Alexander's men wishing to turn back from India and go home; they feel they've fought and died far enough from home for long enough. Alexander's in his tent with Itanes, his young brother-in-law, and wants "someone to talk to ... who can listen without judgment and keep his mouth shut...it is my role to instruct you [in the art of war]." He then delivers a book-long series of monologues to Itanes, on that very subject. I had visions of a pompous professor in a gown like an English don delivering very long lectures to a class of one.

Alexander instructs Itanes on his [Alexander's] life, through various wars and battles Alexander has fought. Itanes's presence isn't even acknowledged until 80-some pages into the novel and after that, sporadically. Alexander gives his ideas on what makes a good soldier. The battle descriptions were well done, and Alexander's advice to various officers and his "Maxims on War" were very common-sense. I was reminded of Sun Tzu's writings on the latter.

I didn't like this portrayal of Alexander. He came across as arrogant, devious, excessively cruel at some points, almost wooden; my teeth were set on edge. He came across as a braggart. For the most part, he was unsympathetic until he and his men fought the Persians and he saw the suffering of his men.

I did like: *his description of how he met Hephaestion, who became his life-long close friend and soulmate.
*his description of Babylonian society.
*his even-handedness in his appraisal of Memnon, his Greek mercenary opponent in the Persian War.
*the Chronology at the end of the book

I did a 'double-take' when he mentioned striking "the bone" in battle to "count the cadence" of marching men. Immediately I thought of the symandron, used to this day. [To those who may not know what a symandron is, it is a special board, struck rhythmically with a mallet to call monks and nuns to prayer in Greek Orthodox monasteries and convents.]

All in all, this book was good enough, but not outstanding. I feel it's basically for people who want to read more Pressfield or for those who devour everything on Alexander the Great. This book has influenced me to dislike anything Alexander the Great! It left such a bad taste in my mouth!

Steven Pressfield did a lot of research and really knew his stuff. He has a great understanding of the character of Alexander the Great. The story is believable and the battles are breathlessly exciting. Unfortunately, I don't like his style very much. It felt clunky, and I was often pulled out of the action by anachronism or colloquial speech that didn't seem to fit. A fun read, but not great literature.

Random notes:

Timeline: born in Pella 356 bc; book begins with Chaeronea 338 BC; father assassinated 336, Alex then becomes king and regains control of Greece; Granicus 334; Issus 333; Guagamela 331; Darius III dies 330; Alexander and his troops sturggle with success, he drunkenly kills Cleitus 328; Spitamenes (grey wolf?) dies 328 BC thus ending the campaign's "guerilla war" in Afghanistan; Indian campaign begins 327 bc; book ends with hydaspes 326 bc; Alexander dies in Babylon 323 bc

Alexander is portrayed paradoxically as a magnanimous warrior capable of incredible cruelty, which is reconciled with the concept of a daimon. Wikipedia notes that this concept is mentioned in Plato's apology - Socrates says he has "a daimonion that frequently warned him—in the form of a "voice"—against mistakes but never told him what to do." (no memory of this from prior reading late 2020) In this book, Alexander's daimon is like an inner force driving him forward, a force that must be contained lest he go too far. Also addressed through his empathy and friendship toward Hephaestion, who struggles with the barbarity of war.

The enumeration of troops and their respective commanders, sometimes covering entire pages and occurring before during and after every battle and skirmish, was not palatable. Alexander retelling his story to a page was kind of an interesting plot device, i initially found it off putting, but it grew on me.

There was an interesting exchange at the end when a greek actor Thessalus joins the campaign, initially comparing warfare and acting then describing how playwrights set up tragedies with misdirection and then reveal only at the end that the character has no one to blame but himself.

In the aftermath of Darius' death and conquering of persia, the campaign lost its purpose. They were fueled by retribution (past wrongs against greece committed by the achaemenid empire). Alexander however was obsessed with moving forward and pushed further east, as he replaced troops with locals the army lost their identity and ultimately grew tired of war, and the incredible success tore them apart.

quotes:
“This man has conquered the world! What have you done?"
The philosopher replied without an instant's hesitation, "I have conquered the need to conquer the world.”

“Every virtue that reaches the exaggeration, is becoming a defect”

for context - i read persian fire dec 2020, it discusses the second persian invasion of greece 480 bc; read in nov 2020 plato's apology detailing socrates trial 399 bc.