The Virtues of War: A Novel of Alexander the Great

With "Steven Pressfield" on the cover, it took less than a heartbeat for me to grab this book--after "Gates of Fire," I was more than eager to be caught up again in the author's enthralling prose of storytelling.

Even with the author's Note on the Reader expressly stating this as a work of fiction, I soon found myself actually believing that it really was Alexander speaking his own thoughts--what he felt as he emerged from the shadow of his father, as he tasted the first of his numerous victories, received the adoration of his men, and found himself later possessed of an empire that demanded too much for the price of an ambition.

For that alone, I stand in awe yet again of this author's skill.

Every chapter is vivid with imagery and every conflict a real human drama. The king's moments of anguish were brutal, eerily honest, and, sometimes, understandable, as he becomes torn between love for his army and the desire to conquer the world beyond India. Indeed, Alexander was thrown in a surreal mix of otherworldliness for his exceptional military prowess and glaring human frailty for succumbing to the snare of arrogance and pride.

There were times when Pressfield's narration seemed like it was being apologetic of Alexander's actions towards his men and their growing disquiet, but then I suddenly remember that this book ostensibly echoed *only* Alexander's voice; so I suppose it couldn't help but have that biased feel.

I became affected with the undercurrents among the characters that I found myself sheepishly switching back and forth in taking sides: from agreeing with the sentiments of his men that their king has pushed them too far for too long, to empathizing with Alexander for wanting glory for Macedonia and for wanting the love of his men to endure forever. And then back again.

I only wished the book *imagined* a little bit more outside of the battlefield. Like his relations with his mother during his youth, with his wives (or even just with Roxanne), and with the other soldiers (besides his "dear mates") who trekked with him across the plains of Asia.

There were some parts as well that felt hurried, while others felt too protracted. And, in some instances I was on the verge of becoming almost bored whenever the book took the tone of becoming more of a manual for warfare, what with the winded accounts of the number of infantry, cavalry, archers, etc. But, I suppose you really cannot get to being an exalted commander without being anal about these things.

But all-in-all, "The Virtues of War" is still a highly-recommended read--epic and artistic, an honest-to-goodness page-turner.

This superior historical novel really ought to be read before his latest one, _The Afghan Campaign,_ which enlarges on one of Alexander's later campaigns, and from a different perspective -- but they're really two separate narratives, so no harm done if (like me) you read them in reverse order. The narrative is Alexander himself, outlining the history of his conquest of Asia for the benefit of one of the cadets who study military science in the king's tent while on campaign. He begins with his early life and his succession to the throne after the assassination of his father, Philip, himself something of a military genius. But Alexander is a prodigy, being everything his father was and far more, with the ability to look at the ground and foresee the battle that will take place there and to foresee the enemy's battle plan. He also possesses an extreme degree of charisma; his troops adore him, even when (as later in the conquest) they fear his altered personality. By the time the Macedonians have passed through Persia proper and have completely changed their approach to warfare to suit the guerilla action in Afghanistan (the king's doing again), and have reached the frontier of India, they're tired to the soul and want only to return home. But Alexander dreams of standing on the shore of the Eastern Ocean, which he's sure can't be far beyond the Ganges. This is the story of Alexander's mental evolution, from semi-barbarian king holding sway in the remote north of the Greek-speaking lands to Eastern potentate who has acquired a taste for all things Persian. But Pressfield also describes the major battles along the way, especially Gaugamela, in fascinating detail. You can see the action, really see it, and understand why each side does what it does, and why the results are what they are. In that regard, this is almost a classical military science textbook. An excellent piece of work.

Steven Pressfield has done it again! After the magnificent "gates of Fire" that made him famous worldwide among those interested in ancient history, "The Virtues of War" is an incomperable account of Alexanders the Great's campaigns, viewd from the perspective of that unbeatable Greek commander. Pressfield proves again that his depth of knowledge regarding ancient warfare is really impressive and the descriptions of battles like Chaeronia, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela are breath-taking! He not only knows tactics well but also army organization, command structure, methods of communications in ancient times and what's more, the nature of the battle in the 4th century BC, the ground over which the battles were fought, and the many fantastic details of the personalities involved. The protraits of Craterus, Memnon, Mazaios and Porus are unforgettable and of course Alexander is ever present, fighting with and against his internal "demon" who pushes him to the edges of the then known world and make him explode in fury when someone doubts his abilities. I wish Pressfield had analyzed also the battle of Hydaspes but apparently he was afraid that this could tire his readers with military details, so he skipped this episode. The campaign of the Macedonians against the Indians is covered though with many nice descriptions. The reader will be surpised by two facts: the daring nature of Alexander coupled witn an extremely well founded professionalism and by the constant fight of the Macedonian king against his own army! A novel about Alexander's epic campaigns could not be best!

This is a review for the audio version. Another great Pressfield book, well researched, beautifully written and great passion. Note the important introductory message that some events have been rearranged or moved to make for a better story.

A great audio book for the road .

Pressfield has become one of my favorite authors. The half dozen other books of his which I have all enjoyed were hardcover. However, this story lent itself to the spoken word and the narrator did a fantastic job. With all of the names of people, places and devices of war it was great to have someone pronouncing them properly. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Alexander has inspired a lot of recent works lately, both in fiction and non-fiction. Here Pressman attempts to make Alexander speak for himself through his words of advice to a young Bactrian Royal Page. The artifice of the author is convincing, and I found this portrait of Alexander much more appealing than say Mary Renault's homeo-errotic inuendos in her earlier fictional work on the subject.

Pressman provides a military view of Alexander's field battles. There is very little else here. He stays mostly with this aspect which some might find limiting. There is little about the other aspects of his career, and the book stays away from the long sieges of Tyre and Gaza, as well as Alexander's expereinces in Egypt. What the author is concorned with is providing a portrait of how Aleander lead and inspired in battle. To have tackled all the other aspects of his life would have made this book more a biograpgy than a work of historical fiction.

Pressman's Alexander is both crude and profound. The use of language is very contemporary at times, here Alexander hardly speaks with the elagance we might associate with his time and place. Pressman portrays him as a grunt almost, as he does the other Greek soldiers as well. Alexander was a curious mix between thinker and man of action. Pressman tries to show his thought process in regars to handling his army. For the most part he succeeds very well. Having read several bios of Alexander already it was interesting to see how this author made his subject come alive for the reader.

The battle scenes are terrific, and again attmept to show Alexander for the genius that he was on the battlefield. The atmosphere of the various campaigns leading up to final battle are very convincing and show what the fear and anticipation of battle might have been even for the stern Macedonians. Pressman shows us the four main battles that he fought. Cheronea is of great interest for its insights into the Theban Sacred Band and to show how Greeks and Macedonians might have felt fighting each other. Pressman does not dwell on the more controversial aspects of Alexander's life. The death of Philip he does not have his Alexander explain. Even the latter assassinations of Philotas, Parmenion, and Cletius are causes for regret, but are quickly explained away by this Alexander.

This is an Alexander for the most part of the heroic mold, the more traditional version that most of us know. It lacks the cyncial outlook of more recent biographical works. The enjoyment of this book will be greatly enhanced if the reader consults a biograpgy of Alexander either before or after reading it. The interest of this work is that it provides a means to understand Alexander on a more intimate level. Whether accurate or flawed, Pressman deserves credit for bringing his subject to life for all of us to enjoy. His impressive literary effort tries to make us better understand the mind of this amazing and controversial figure of history.

''The virtues of War'' by Steven Pressfield is the interesting description of the Alexander's conquests from his own perspective. While reading this very decent historical novel reader sees that author knowns customs, morals and life of an ordinary soldier in detail. I like his sober approach to the very old and still commonly repeated rumour that famous Sacred Band from Thebes was consisted of pairs of lovers. Despite the fact that this is the work of fiction I really like it.

Everyone I know who's read Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire considers it one of the best historical novels of all time--and, because it's the kind of book you force upon friends, that's just about every guy I know. When an author gives readers such a gift it seems only fair to give him some loyalty in return. So, although his newest seemed marred by a significant flaw, I kept reading Virtues of War, and that devotion was richly rewarded as in the end the seeming flaw turns out to be the point of the work and illustrates it beautifully.

Oliver Stone's better publicized new film, Alexander, has re-ignited an ago old controversy about the conqueror: did his conquests serve a purpose, spreading Greek Civilization eastwards, or was it simply a matter of conquest for conquest's sake. As Peter Green explained in a recent review essay in The New Republic:

"Guy Griffith, my old ancient history teacher at Cambridge, is on record as holding it to be "one of the paradoxes of history (and historiography)" that despite Alexander's extraordinary career, which attracted so many writers, and despite the care that he devoted to the promotion of his own image, he "should have been handed down finally in history as an enigma." In the half-century or so since then, historians have cleared up the picture a good deal, and Cartledge's well-documented account reflects this progress: the profile that emerges is that of a military genius driven by an overwhelming obsession, a pothos, to pursue glory through conquest to the world's end, and take savage reprisals against any who thwarted his will while he was at it. Arrian was surely right: had Alexander lived, "he would not have stopped conquering even if he'd added Europe to Asia and the Britannic islands to Europe." It is almost impossible to think of Alexander in old age. He remains a beacon, an icon, arrested in mid-career, a meteor streaking for all eternity toward an infinite future. The Greeks who cursed him as a barbarous killer in his lifetime, but over the millennia came to see him as the brightest torch-bearer of the Hellenic spirit, are proof enough of that."

There's obviously much a writer of fiction can do with such paradox. The easy way out, for a popular novelist in particular, would be to make Alexander a pleasing action hero and "torch-bearer" of culture. Mr. Pressfield though, to his great credit, takes the far harder route, giving us an Alexander who is a creature of his own selfish ambitions. This Alexander is an anti-hero, which presents challenges to the reader, because we are so disaffected from Alexander's long march of war, and for the author; but, for the reader who sticks with him, Mr. Pressfield offers real rewards.

The conceit of the novel is that Alexander has a demon, a "daimon" in Mr. Pressfield's parlance, which drives him onwards from brutal victory to brutal victory, a virtual being outside himself, preventing him from listening to his better angels. At first, when things are going well and fairly easily, with his army and his officers well-satisfied, the daimon is a relatively subdued presence. But as Alexander's appetite for new territory becomes insatiable and takes them farther and farther afield, until their wars can have only the most tangential relationship to security and interests of their Greek homelands, the army becomes increasingly restive, the commanders disgruntled, and Alexander less capable of holding back the daimon, which takes on the qualities of almost an alternate personality.

I'll try not to give up too much of the endgame, but, in a pivotal scene late in the novel, Alexander is introduced to a gymnosophist, "the 'naked wise men' of India":

"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."

The indictment that Mr. Pressfield hands down is that the unknown Indian's feat is a greater conquest than any of Alexander's.

If you start reading this book with an eye toward historical accuracy and truly understanding who Alexander was, you will be sorely disappointed. If, however, you go into it knowing that this is entirely a work of fiction very loosely imposed on the backdrop of actual history, then you may very well be delighted with it.

I shorted it by one star for three reasons: First, I was at first put off by the first-person account given by Alexander to one of his pages. It struck me as a rather forced and unnatural way of creating an excuse for writing it in first-person. However, I did get used to it and the flowing and poetic nature of the writing more than made up for it. Second, there is the reality that nearly everything in this book is a complete fabrication, with only a very loose connection to the truth. As a work of historical fiction one has to expect that an author would take certain liberties with the facts, but this one makes almost no effort whatsoever to recite ANYTHING as it truly occurred. Pressfield could get away with this in Tides of War and Gates of Fire because his main characters were minor players in history. However, Alexander the Great is an enormous figure on the historical stage, making him less useful as a character in a work of fiction. Finally, it struck me that, in this book, Pressfield was trying too hard to emulate Eagle in the Snow, a book that obviously had a profound influcence on his writing career.

All that being said, I still give this book four stars because I found the style of writing to be poetic and captivating. The prose carried me away and made me feel like I was right there where the action was occurring. And although Pressfield barely scratches the surface of Alexander's long campaign, one has to recognize that it would be impossible to include every important event that occurred during that journey. I thought Pressfield did a good job of choosing those events that are most important to the overall story of the book, thereby making it flow well. Finally, I got to the point where I could not put this book down, which is always a good indication that it's a good one. That more than anything else prompted me to give this book four stars rather than perhaps just three.

Overview: A novel about Alexander the Great and his conquests across Asia Minor, the Holy Land, Egypt, the Persian Empire and India. It is told in first person, as Alexander tells his story to an Afghani scribe right before the final crossing of the Indus river to face an Indian king (Porus) whom he held in the highest of esteem. The tale covers the life of Alexander, really, from his upbringing under his father Philip, King of Macedonia, to his death at the age of 32.

The book starts off a bit slow, and for me required a push to continue. But once it hit the description of the first big battle (Philip's last major battle and the first that the young Lion Alexander led troops in.), I was hooked. There was something about the way Alexander relayed the details of the battle ahead of time, describing exactly what and whom each side was bringing to the battle field, and then how he developed the strategy for defeating the foe, usually in the face of staggeringly unbalanced numbers (in the enemy's favor), and then reading how the battles played out to victory for Alexander... truly great reading. So the middle of the book was a joy for me to read.

However, the book once again dragged to a slog with the final quarter of the book, once Alexander and his army had conquered - and settled into - Babylon. The Persian King Darius was the sole reason the troops fought. Once they had seen to the toppling of the Persian Empire, and the centuries-old revenge that provided for the Greeks and Macedonians, the army wanted to take their plunder and go home. But Alexander had far loftier goals that remained undone. He wanted to reach the ocean at the end of the world, past India, far beyond where any Greek King had been before... a goal that was ultimately too ambitious, even for Alexander. The dramatic change in terrain and opponents proved too much for his troops, and they ultimately convinced Alexander to abandon his ambitions and let them return home to enjoy the rest of their lives with their families, many having been away from home for almost a decade.

The book slogs at the end because the warfare shifts into guerrilla fighting in Afghanistan, and sitting in soggy encampments on one side of the Indus River, waiting for the opportunity to cross the mile-wide river to continue the fight in India. Gone were the marvelous recountings of the clashing armies on grand battlefields, and instead come tales of small bands hunting other small bands, tracking through mountains, burning villages, trying to flush out rebels. Yawn. Couldn't be helped, really. It's not like Pressfield could rewrite history... he skillfully crafted a well-written first-person account of the conquests of one of the world's greatest kings...

Ultimately, I'm glad I read it. It was not a very long book, had some terrific dialog, with a wonderfully rich vocabulary (though I still don't know what 'perfidy' means...), and will now take a place of honor on my Shelf of Books I'm Glad I Have Read (rather than getting squirreled away on a bottom shelf somewhere). Not nearly as good as his Gates of Fire, but neither is anything else I have read.

Summary: Well worth reading. 4/5

I find flaw with those readers critcizing novels in general for not being historically accurate. If that's how you feel, why are you reading novels?

This is an excellent novel of life 2400 years ago, when Phillip of Macedon united the City States of Greece and led them from civil war into a powerful, united world force, only upon his assassination to give it all to his teenage son. Like the teenage Henry 1500 years later preaching to the English troops at Agincourt ('are we not a Band of Brothers?'), Alexander rules by example and veteran generals three times his age follow his dream to rule the known world. And he does.

The novel is told in the first person, somewhat like a movie, Alexander speaking to his brother-in-law Itanes in his command tent as he is about to do battle in India. In that respect the book is a series of flashbacks however they are done comfortably and for the most part, seamlessly.

Those readers who reflect on the story of Alexander being a tome on leadership are 100% correct. Certainly he captures the hearts and souls of his army as he leads it around the world and molds it to his vision.

I think I discovered Alexander in the fourth grade through the prodding of an unorthodox, avante garde nun who pushed the Alexander myth. The three events I recall from that time are the weeping at the end of the journey, the slicing of the Gordian knot once Persdia is taken (not much play here) and Alexander's love for his giant battle horse, Bucephalus, who gets a lot of description here.

Excellent stuff. On a par with "Gates of Fire." Worth the effort. Don't read it if you're doing a term paper. IT'S A NOVEL. 5 Stars. Larry Scantlebury

This is yet another excellent work by Mr. Pressfield. While it would be unfair to compare anything to Gates of Fire, it is because of that book that I continue to read Steven Pressfield and with few exceptions I continue to be richly rewarded. In this latest novel the author transports us into the mind of one of the most interesting and difficult figures in history to explain. An earlier review chastens Mr. Pressfield for taking a romantic view of Alexander the Great and what drove him to conquest. I have to disagree wholeheartedly! If there wasn't any romanticism attached to Alexander than who but the historians would care to read or write about him. It is these romantic notions that draw us back to Alexander continually. Mr. Pressfield presents an Alexander that truly believes in what he is doing. He struggles when difficult decisions are made. The same earlier review says that Pressfield's Alexander is a benevolent warlord. There are times that Alexander comes across as that, but there are times when he has entire villages massacred as the only way to fight a guerilla war. He kills no less than three of his Macedonian Generals. I would argue that Alexander would be an incredible psychological study and Mr. Pressfield has brought that complicated psyche alive in these pages with his riveting prose. Let this Alexander be a sort of romantic figure. There is nothing wrong with this. Read it and get lost in the mind a military genius that borders on insanity. It has been said before, but it is true. Steven Pressfield is a master wordsmith and I look forward to his next novel.

Alexander, or Iskandar as called in Asia, is one of the most famous historical icon ever. His conquest all over Southern and Eastern Europe, well into Asia Minor and India was an amazing feat which was not to be repeated again even by any living person. The great Darius of Persia (or Parthia in the olden days) was eventually conquered, and so was part of the Indian kingdom. Effectively handling and managing wars and the conquest, Alexander found himself in a more difficult position to retain his empire, compared to acquiring them at the first place. Rather, he ruled by assimilating Eastern and Western cultures by having his troops marrying to the locals. Evidences still show in the olden routes which he used to pass during his conquest, where many people have the Eurasian look. Though a fiction work, Pressfield has incorporated quite a few historical facts, thus, rendering them vague between fiction or fact.

Pressfield's writing style is quite convincing, especially with the military tactics involved. Surely he had done an extensive research in doing so. Military warfares, armaments, charaters lifestyles, romances and even poems were beautifully exploited to their maximum.

This novel is sure to be classic fiction, especially on Hellenic history fans. It will easily fit as one of the top 100 fiction book written at the end of the 21st century.

I have devoured Steven Pressfield's three previous novels of Greek antiquity -- "Gates of Fire," "Tides of War," and "Last of the the stores." Each novel has skillfully balanced romance, battlefield carnage, and an often-times melancholy lament for lost glories and friendships, and I have been compelled to re-read each novel.

While still writing about ancient Greece, Pressfield has taken a markedly different tack with "Virtues of War." No longer is the narrator a witness/unknown participant in great events - now the narrator is Alexander, the unquestioned marquee player in all of the ancient world. In many respects, Alexander is a perfect choice. Even though entire libraries could be devoted to the books written about this man, very little is precisely known about the man from the backwoods of Macedonia who led his invincible army to and past the boundaries of the known (Greek) world. So even though Pressfield is somewhat constrained by historical events, Alexander offers almost complete freedom as far as his actual thoughts and motivations are concerned.

According to Pressfield, Alexander thought almost exclusively about tactics and strategy. Indeed, one chapter is almost entirely given over to the maxims of war Alexander decrees to his commanders. While Pressfield's earlier Greek novels have offered exquisitely detailed, horrifyingly beautiful battle scenes -- which are as well written as any you will read, anywhere, period -- Alexander describes his battles with a relative mechanical quality . . . "Parmenio commanded my left flank, Philotas anchored the right, and Black Cleitus spewed profanities next to me . . ." While this may be appropriate -- Alexander undoubtedly had a gift for both strategy and tactics - the battle passages are not as gripping as those in his earlier works.

The choice of Alexander as protagonist also forces Pressfield to make choices, since he has written a lean, mean novel of 368 pages. One of Alexander's mightiest achievements was the construction of a half-mile mole, a feat that took over seven months, to lead his successful charge against the island fortress of Tyre. And yet, Tyre gets barely a mention in "Virtues." Indeed, "Virtues" spends no time on siege warfare at all, and this absence is difficult to explain, given Alexander's repeated demonstration of genius at the art of siege warfare.

To be fair, Pressfield could have easily doubled the length of his novel if he went into every aspect of Alexander's military conquests, but some of these omissions are alarming.

Pressfield, as always, writes with a moving clarity, and while "Virtues" may not reach the poetic heights of his other Greek novels, Pressfield still exhibits flashes of his poet's soul. You will read and re-read his brief "Sarissa's Song," which may be the best epitaph for Alexander yet written.

This is a four-star review only because the combination of Pressfield and Alexander offers almost too much potential. This is a darn good book, but unfortunately, not my favorite of Pressfield's takes on the world of Greek antiquity.

This novel is a worthwhile entertainment. Pressfield remains one of the more interesting writers dealing with ancient warfare. He has his strengths and weaknesses, but over all he's worth a reader's time. This is not a definitive treatment of Alexander. There are quite a few aspects of his life that Pressfield chooses not to deal with, probably because others have already done so, like Mary Renault and Valerio Massimo Manfredi. This is okay by me in that he gives you a pretty streamlined novel here. Pressfield is a writer that works with an audience in mind. I've heard him say that Tides of War was his favorite novel, but it was also one of his less successful. Readers seemed to tire of the slow pace of it, the back and forth of its political machinations and perhaps an unsatisfying resolution.

So Pressfield hasn't repeated that here. He starts the novel strongly and moves straight ahead with an even pace. I think his weaknesses are in terms of character complexity and development. Alexander is a confusing figure; this novel doesn't do anything to change that, although Pressfield seems to want to. Some of his speeches fell strangely flat to me, more like television bravura than the true words of the world's greatest general. And at times he does say and do things that seem to smack of twentieth century, romanticized ideology. Pressfield is no master of form. He chooses to tell the whole story in first person, creating the rather artificial proposal that we're actually hearing Alexander tell his story to a young man who's writing it all down. This doesn't really hold up to scrutiny - nobody tells a story like this, with exact dialogue, with careful authorial details and complete chronological order - but perhaps the point is that we're not supposed to scrutinize. We're just supposed to read and accept what's there. For the most part I was happy to do this.

Especially so because the author's strength makes up for these flaws - and that is that Pressfield knows how to write about battle. He does so marvelously. It's visual, visceral, gory and graphic. Yet he also lays out the big picture and convincingly details strategy. I read Gates of Fire and liked it well enough, but the battle scenes here show that Pressfield has honestly made himself a student a war and seeks to bring it across in his telling.

I think this is one of the three best novels of distant war I've read in the last year. The others are The Last Kingdom by Bernard Cornwall, and Pride of Carthage by David Anthony Durham. Cornwall does an amazing job of narrating from the point of view of a ninth century century english warrior. Never does he feel out of character, and that's a remarkable achievement. Durham's novel is quite different. It's on a big scale, with lots and lots of characters from all throughout the spectrum that was engulfed in Hannibal's war with Rome. I highly recommend these two. Virtues of War isn't quite as good as either, but I recommend it also. They're each different, but all with particular strengths that are worth your time.

The Virtues of War: A Novel of Alexander the Great, by Steven Pressfield is an excellent novel on a variety of fronts. It is written in such a fashion as to have left me wondering if Pressfield is some kind of ancient genius. You would swear that he was there. You can almost smell the dust and blood from the battles, and hear the thumping of elephants' feet. This book can be rated as nothing less than incredible. Personally, I also gleaned some leadership and management ideas from this book. Alexander is painted as a very generous man, yet one that demanded loyalty. The subplot of the malcontents is relevant even in today's times. This book was surprisingly easy to read, even though there were numerous strategems on battle described.

Five stars for this one. Highly recommended.

Readers of historical fiction will be utterly captivated by "The Virtues of War." This was the first Steven Pressfield novel I've read and was totally impressed by his writing. The storyline flows seamlessly and the tremendous battle scenes, told through the eyes and voice of Alexander the Great himself, unfold in all their chaotic grandeur. Battles aside, Alexander's memoirs - his upbringing and his rise to power - are fascinating. Trained to be a soldier and a warrior his memoirs reflect a man who is most restless when ruling an empire but is most alive when leading an army into battle. As a warrior-king he is a man of extremes - compassionate and utterly ruthless, forgiving and uncompromisingly vengeful. Ultimately, Alexander is shown as a man, much like Ahad, who is obsessively driven in pursuit, not of a great white whale, of conquest itself.

"The Virtues of War" is a terrific read about one of the greatest military geniuses in history.

Pressfield, in his usual first person reminiscent style, delivers yet another glorious gem of life in ancient Greece. Written as a series of letters from Alexander to a young captain in his service in India, VoW provides excellent insight into all manners of specifics concerning a military campaign. Details flourish and add weighted realism to Pressfield's text. His version of Alexander the Great is neither pompous nor inhuman, nor godlike. He's a man. But an extraordinary one who was as enamored with his enemies and his army as they were with him. He talks of the campaign: sieges, battles, marches, events in camp, parlays, etc., and in so doing recounts not just the events and their impact on the campaign but delves into the psyche, the motives and drives that propelled him (Alexander) to "greatness" and compel him further. The letters are typically concise and powerful; a shot of Alexander right into your neck! It would seem that the Lakedamonian style of short writing still appeals to Pressfield!

Pressfield knows how to build a story. He knows how to weave a story and build emotion. But best of all, he knows how to explode that emotion. Gates of Fire, Tides of War, War of Art, all of these books have moments that make you shed a tear or two. VoW is no different. There are great moments of joy and jubilation and there are moments of tremendous sorrow. Both are expertly crafted.

The realism is dead-on as well. The technical aspects of Pressfield's works are superb and without match. You want to know about equipment and tactics in the Macedonian phalanx? Read Virtues of War. It's that simple. You want to understand Alexander the Great on a human, realistic level? Read VoW.

The only flaw, of course, with VoW is the same flaw Pressfield suffers from in every one of his books. It grows dark towards the end. Gates of Fire and Tides of War, along with War of Art, all fell victim to this one flaw in Pressfield's style. The story starts off grand and bright as the dawn, and as the day burns brightly and grows hot with magnificence, so does Virtues. But as dusk settles on the day so does his work begin to grow dim. Characters die, bad things happen, tragedies strike, misfortunes abound. Basically, all the good that happens in the first 3/4ths of the book ebbs, replaced by the consequential bad that dominates the last 4th of the text. Gates of Fire was like this as well.

Though this should in no way inhibit you from reading this fine work; the end will not leave you dissatisfied or down in the dumps! You will know that, like all of Pressfield's historical works, it ends in the only way it can. Virtues of War is a masterfully crafted hypothesis of Alexander the Great told with Pressfield's typical yet astounding attention to detail, realistic dialogue, and characters as emotional and vivid as the intensely, minutely described battle scenes. This one is not to be missed. Buy used if you can, but I have no problem saying buy "New" or in the bookstores, Pressfield deserves our money for providing such a magnanimous work! Besides, he's a nice guy, you can go to his website and email him and he'll write you back! How cool is that? Worth spending the money on his latest book!

This book is truly compelling and completely enjoyable. The descriptions of the Battles of Issus and Gaugamela are the best that I've ever read concerning Alexander's field generalship. Figuring out how an ancient battle might have unfolded is difficult, but the descriptions in this book are clear and exciting. My only complaint is that the book is too short, leaving out much of Alexander's siege work and activities in Egypt. The portrait of this leader that emerges is probably more sympathetic than some treatments, but Pressfield makes a good attempt to get inside Alexander's head in this first-person account. From today's perspective, It was interesting to note that Alexander was able to triumph over numerically superior forces with ease, while it took him 3 years of brutal struggle to confront guerilla warriors in what is now Afghanistan. Even genius has its limits.

Steven Pressfield's "The Virtues of War : A Novel of Alexander the Great" is a first person historical fiction novel covering Alexander the Great's years of conquest. Unlike his "Tides of War" and "Gates of Fire," which give the common soldier's point of view, this novel describes the action from the top, as told by the army's leader. Still, this novel shows the brutality and inhumanity of war, just as Pressfield's earlier novels do.

Like his earlier novels, "The Virtues of War" is very well-researched and is convincingly told. My only problem with the Pressfield novels is that they are so convincing that, even though he raises disclaimers that they are fiction, it is hard to tell where the line is drawn between Pressfield's imagination and historical fact. One new twist in this novel is that Alexander often speaks on the art of war and uses the story to illustrate Alexander's views on war.

This is a gritty, profane first person fictional account of Alexander's conquests. It is a great read for anyone interested in military history or historical fiction.

I find it rewarding that this ancient character is treated with a tone and vision suitable to his era. That he should be presented as a seeker of glory rather than as a tortured madman with pschological underpinnings and other politically correct rubbish is entirely refreshing and appropriate. Indeed, I have always felt that Pressefield's novels channel sources from beyond our time, and the lukewarm effect his works often have on reviewers will certainly subside with time. I have no doubt Pressefield will eventually be regarded as a master and a true artist, probably after he is gone. Such is the timeless appeal of his work. Like all great art, this work is most affecting when the reader allows himself to be swept into its world without thinking or reflecting on its virtues or meanings. Indeed the author does not waste his time this way when writing, as he has revealed in his masterpiece the non fictional "the War of Art" Pressefield is the Alexander of attacking artistic hurdles, and his affinity with the warrior-spirit is both the subject and the source of the substance of his art. If you like "Virtues of War", don't forget to check out the "War of Art" "Gates of Fire", and the vastly underated "Last of the the stores" This is the kind of work that makes one want to meet the author so one can express one's thanks in person.

I was a little disappointed when I heard that Pressfield's new book was going to be about Alexander the Great. What with the movie and all the stuff on the History Channel et al to capitalize on it, I thought his book would get lost in the deep end of this entertainment sewer.

But was I wrong! I should have held faith in Pressfield being the best historical fiction author of our time (after Patrick O'Brian of course!!).

The detail of tactical engagement of Alexander's armies against the Persians is astonishing. It works without being too wordy or dry. I also like how it does not go too much into his death, or its aftermath. The story of his accomplishments speaks for itself.

This is an outstanding book in many respects. I had to read it again this past summer and I enjoyed it more the second time. The author takes you into the mind of one of, if not the, greatest military commanders of all time and does it in a convincing and dramatic fashion. His description of the Battle of Chaeronea was so vivid I could imagine myself riding "boot to boot" with the Companion cavalry whether or not it is true that cavalry of those days did, in fact, charge infantry formations without stoping or not. Since no one has tried it in recent memory I guess we can continue to debate that point. Pressfield is definitely the master of the story and does a magnificent job of imagining the thoughts of Alexander,as much as anyone can looking back from the 21st century with a Western mind and not one that grew up in Macedonia 300 plus years before the birth of Christ. The only reason I did not give the book 5 stars is that it falls short of his Tides of War in scope and did not include anything, other than a cursory mention, of Alexander's most magnificent accomplishment; the siege of Tyre. Overall, I couldn't put the book down, and reading Alexander's speech to his troops just before the Battle Hydaspes in India sent chills down my spine. They really don't make men like Alexander too often and it was a fantastic journey to ride with him across Persia for a few days. I highly reccommend the book to any first time or veteran historical fiction reader.

This book is definitely not at par with Pressfield's older greek-themed novels, Gates of Fire and the Tides of War. It is smaller for one thing, and seems to lack the passion and epic feel of his previous work.

Still, it has two redeeming qualities (more than redeeming in fact)

a) the best analysis of Alexander's battles I have ever read. Wow! FINALLY. I mean, I 've read the original Arian Biography, as well as Plutarch's Life of Alexander, for this very reason, trying to get a glimpse of the genius - but to no usefull avail.

The strategy of these battles was never obvious; they seemed rather like mad charges, without any particular plan.

But Pressfiled's words make such good sense out of them. No one writes War like this guy.

b) As expected, Steven Pressfield has portrayed Alexander's complex personality almost perfectly. No silly one-dimmensional characterisations here, but rather a beatiful multi-faceted piecing together of motives, drives, talents and emotion.

We can only hope that the upcoming movie will be half as richly woven as this.

If only the book was longer..

This is essentially a book for enthusiasts of military history, war gaming and the like.
It has little character development and hardly explores the personal side or event the political processes of Alexander's empire building.
It essentially deals with Alexander's consolidation of his control of Greece, his defeat Darius and the Persian Empire and his Indian Campaign.
It misses out parts and is not a complete saga.
Nonetheless it does somewhat explore Alexander's mind from a romantic perspective.It deals with his conversation with Indian Prince Porus, and Alexander's admiration for Persian Emperor Darius.
The book is simply too short to cover Alexander's life and career.
I would suggest, unless you are looking for details of battles and military strategy, you look elsewhere for a good novel about Alexander the Great.

Steven Pressfield scores again. This time he hides a lively treatise on 4th century B.C. Macedonian warfare under the guise of a reflective, first-person journal kept by you-know-who himself. Focusing on the nexus of leadership and tactics, Pressfield sears this page turner with lucid scholarship, bringing the battles of Chaeronea, Granicus, Issus, and Guagamela alive in taut, concrete, and fixating prose right down to the choking chalkfield dust of Guagamela in the reader's nostrils. You soon realize that this is not your ordinary novel. You do not care that Pressfield routinely interleaves speechifying with battle scene with graphic detail; rather, you welcome it, as he tightens your pucker string with rising suspense: "How's Alexander going to keep things heading East this time?

To me, Pressfield's novel is a treatise on leadership for our time. Chapter Nineteen in Book VI of the novel, "Maxims of War," is worth the price of the book alone. You come away with the realization that Machiavelli's The Prince is a rehash of the praxis of Greek and Persian wisdom some 2000 years old.

If you love military history. This is a must read. If you are student of leadership--add this to your curriculum. If you love someone who loves military history or is a student of leadership, put this book in his or her stocking. Your recipient will burn incense in your honor.

In his fourth novel, "Virtues of War" Stephen Pressfield has proven that he is a master at blending history with fiction. As with his previous novels, Pressfield has taken events from ancient Greece, in this case the life of Alexander the Great, and woven them together with threads and voices of his own creation to produce a fictional, but startlingly real, tale. What sets apart "Virtues of War" from his prior novels is the author's relentless focus; much like his subject, Pressfield has stripped away the fat and driven the story forward at a relentless pace.

This is due in part to the use of the first person; the historical Alexander was a man whose reach always exceeded his grasp, and as such he was driven forward when other men would have stopped to enjoy the fruits of their accomplishments. As such, Pressfield couldn't dally in his telling, as long winded considerations of campaigns and locales, while perhaps fascinating in their own right, would have been at odds with Alexander's vision. This focus is revealed most obviously in the almost complete absence of any discussion of the campaign into and out of Egypt. Like Alexander, Pressfield's narrative eyes Persia and points east, and all other campaigns are treated as extraneous.

As always, Pressfield has a rare gift for describing the dust and mayhem of an ancient battlefield, but in "Virtues of War" he nicely sets this at odds with Alexander's strategic and tactical brilliance. Without bogging the reader down in a lot of technical details, he is able to portray how Alexander is able to dictate the course of the battle through his dispositions and planning, even as the issue on the ground is always a sword's breadth away from turning against him. This contrast between order and chaos infuses the narrative, and mirrors Alexander's own personal torments.

Which brings us to the book's high point, Pressfield's portrayal of Alexander. He rather cleverly frames this enigmatic figure as someone who is possessed, or perhaps in more modern terms, plagued by a split personality. There is Alexander the man, even Alexander the solider, who is driven by great ambition, but who is possessed of some self control and human frailty. However, there is also Alexander's inner daimon, which is much colder, much more calculating. It will stop at nothing to achieve its ends, even if it destroys the humanity of its host in the process. This internal dichotomy is a clever narrative device which both frames the seeming mental imbalance of the historical Alexander, while setting him apart from the lesser mortals who are his compatriots.

There is also a cautionary element in Pressfield's writing; a significant portion of the novel deals with the pacification of Afghanistan. While historically accurate, the metaphor to America's War on Terror is obvious as Alexander is sucked into a vortex of brutality and futility in which he becomes that which he hates.

Finally, there is the conclusion, which subtly plays upon Alexander's hubris. As his army turns back from India his time for conquest is over, and thus his time is over. In the end he became defined by war and in its absence, he and his daimon simply fade away. While there are manifold tales of how Alexander actually died, it is ultimately irrelevant to this story as Pressfield's focus is defined by Alexander's ambition, and with his passing, further narrative would have killed the pacing of the book.

In "Virtues of War" Pressfield has produced yet another approachable and engaging historical novel. While not always entirely true to history as it happened (a fact which he quite openly admits) he is always true to the spirit of events, and his narrative is so loaded with detail that even the informed reader will appreciate the level of research and realism. A delight for history readers, but equally approachable for the fan of military fiction, "Virtues of War" is another great entry from an author who is redefining the genre of historical fiction.

Jake Mohlman

I like historical fiction and I have an interest in history (why else would I read historical fiction???). I am no historian, but I have read up on Alexander the Great and am familiar with his battles, life etc... That said, at times I was lost while reading this book. There is little in the way of background. The focus seems to be more on battle narrative (there were three hundred of this nationality, led by ....) and less on why the battle occurred in the first place and its overall importance. The pieces on his struggles with morale, logistics and diplomacy were enjoyable but felt limited. If you are going to read this, do yourself a favor and buff up on your history first, it will make the tale more understandable and enjoyable...

Amazing audio book. Narration is very well done, and the story is very intriguing. If you know even a little about Alexander the Great, you will be very familiar with the subject matter. Talks a lot about his generals, major campaigns, etc.

Author takes a unique approach in that while it is historical, he took some liberties with the some of the characters/events that take place. He states this from the very beginning as well.

Great book!

Pressfield has once again shown why he has been positioned at the pinnacle of historical fiction novelists. Virtues falls directly in line with Pressfield's previous works in that the reader is swept into the past with an almost perfect description of times, places, events and emotions, not easily recreated or described in words. As you go through the pages (they will pass very quickly) you feel as though you are privy to the inner thoughts of Alexander. Fiction though it may be, Pressfield's ability to make those thoughts take on a legitimacy in the scheme of actual historical events is, to say the least, impressive. You will be "literarily" transported into some of the most vivid battle scenes written and finish the chapters with a mouth full of dust and sweat on the brow. Virtues is a must read for historical fiction fans and distinguishes itself as one more feather in Pressfield's cap.

Amazing audio book. Narration is very well done, and the story is very intriguing. If you know even a little about Alexander the Great, you will be very familiar with the subject matter. Talks a lot about his generals, major campaigns, etc.

Author takes a unique approach in that while it is historical, he took some liberties with the some of the characters/events that take place. He states this from the very beginning as well.

Great book!

Pressfield has once again shown why he has been positioned at the pinnacle of historical fiction novelists. Virtues falls directly in line with Pressfield's previous works in that the reader is swept into the past with an almost perfect description of times, places, events and emotions, not easily recreated or described in words. As you go through the pages (they will pass very quickly) you feel as though you are privy to the inner thoughts of Alexander. Fiction though it may be, Pressfield's ability to make those thoughts take on a legitimacy in the scheme of actual historical events is, to say the least, impressive. You will be "literarily" transported into some of the most vivid battle scenes written and finish the chapters with a mouth full of dust and sweat on the brow. Virtues is a must read for historical fiction fans and distinguishes itself as one more feather in Pressfield's cap.

I liked this better than his "Gates of Fire", which I thought spent too much time on the characters themselves.

Pressfield does begin with his own note about various historical inaccuracies he incorporated, as well as name changes and modern terms he used which never existed then. Although this doesn't help make you feel like you're really back 2,300 years, it does make it easier reading for anyone who's more interested in a basic story of him.

It's written in the first person from Alexander's point of view, so of course Pressfield has to incorporate his own opinions about the man, but this again does it make interesting for those not as well-learned about the era or the man.

For further reading, check out Manfredi's "Alexander" historical fiction trilogy, or Peter Green's amazing bio "Alexander of Macedon".

When I opened Mr. Pressfield's book, The Virtues of War, I was so excited I could scarely contain myself. Being an Alexander of Macedon junky, I was thrilled to see Mr. Pressfield's attempt at the great warrior king. However, unlike Pressfield's other book which moved me so, Gates of Fire, I found his Alexander falling short of my expectations. I found myself thinking if Alexander were really this single-minded and unsophisticated, no wonder his troops mutinied against him in 326 BC. This book shone for me most when Pressfield's Alexander was speaking of the art of battle. I did enjoy and found immensely instructive his Alexander's explanation of his military actions, thoughts and stategies. It's clear Pressfield understands the military genius in Alexander and for those of us who don't have military backgrounds or understand the concept and drive and design of battle this book is a treasure. His Alexander was brilliantly didactic with military instruction. However, I had hoped I would finally, at last see through Pressfield's eyes at look at what drove the man. There were glimpses, especially with Pressfield's wonderful poem of the sarissa, and the poignant passage between Alexander and Telamon at the book's end. But Pressfield seems to have forgotten that Alexander was also a lover of theatre, the arts, a keen student in the art of medicine, as well as a statesman, friend and lover; no, I won't get into that debate. In short Alexander was a brillant, tempermental, many-faceted individual who has left the world since his death enthralled with him. Pressfield didn't go far enough into helping me understand this man, the one I hoped to meet when I opened his book. However I would recommed it as it is a valuable addition in the understanding of military genius, such as Alexander's and a must in one's library.

Pressfield is terrific - Gates of Fire remains one of my favorite historical novels of all time. In his book on Alexander, I think Pressfield fails because he is trying to do too much - the scope of the book is too broad and it doesn't seem that Pressfield was as thorough with his research. Alexander is my favorite historical personage and this just didn't do him justice. The Persian Boy by Mary Renault is a much better place to start.

I read this book, correction, I inhaleded this book! from the veiwpointof a horse cavalryman. This gets it right. The facts ,the spirit, the thechnical minentia. Either Pressfeild has sat a horse on a "battleline" or listened carefully to someone who has. The part where he tells how the tension of sitting waiting for the moment to take acton is as debillitating as the action itself is true. All the rider's stress goes right thru his seat and into the horse. Thanks for a great read.

... Yes, an utter mystery to me. How authors such as Pressfield, and film makers such as Stone, can portray probably the most fascinating, enigmatic man in all of history as such a dud. Alexander was great, in whatever way you take great to mean, because of what he accomplished. That is not conveyed in this book. About the only thing of worth conveyed in this book is the battle scenes, which went on and on and on. Read this book if you are into that sort of stuff. Personally, I find it rather dull.

I find Pressfield's characterizations one-sided and this work is no exception to that rule.

If you really want to read a great story about Alexander, read the works of the ancients. Arrian. Curtius. Plutarch. They are MUCH more entertaining.

For all my criticisms, I did manage to finish the book, which ended at a strange and unsatisfying point.

I read Pressfield's Fantastic "Gates of Fire" and this is a close second. I have also read Valario Manfredi's supurb Trilogy on Alexander. This story is even more gripping.

Also to all those who are dissapointed in the non-gayness of this book: There is absolutely no evidence that Alexander had a gay relationship with Hephastion. All that is mentioned by the ancient authors is that they were "philoi." (Greek for Good Friends) The kind of very close friend you have when you know someone from childhood. It was the lesbian Mary Renalt who corrupted Alexander's legacy to be primarily gay. This is bogus. Read the ancient authors such as Plutarch and you will find no evidence of this. Steven Pressfield rightly concentrates on Alexander's great battles, not on prime time tv style gossip. It urks me to no end when people twist facts to fit their own agenda.

Pressfield has done it again, another wonderful depiction of the warrior class of ancient Greece. Bravo! Sometimes surpasses even Gates of Fire. Too bad Oliver Stone didn't wait to start filming his bomb and instead based his movie on this great novel. A word to the wise, save your money on tickets and popcorn and buy this novel!

I bought this book becuase I wanted a colourful introduction to Alexander, and I have to say this was a great read. Getting used to the first person narrative is a little strange for the first few pages, but you quickly get used to it. In fact it adds much to the power of the book. The detail, the places, the colour, sights and smells; Pressfield paints an evocative picture. This is really thrilling stuff, well researched and worthwhile. I am glad I read this. Great introduction to an extraordinary man.

3 stars becuase although I loved the book, and highly recommend it, I have become sceptical of all the five star reviews on the store. Folks, this one wasn't written by a friend of the publisher. honest!------ update! the book deserves 5 stars so just given it.

Having waited anxiously for this novel for many months, I must express my disappointment with Pressfield's latest venture, Virtues of War. What the book proved to me is the same thing that the movie Alexander did (aside from it being a downright poor film): you cannot capture the essence of Alexander in so brief an account. This book needed to be apart of a series (like the Killer Angels series) or twice the number of pages to work. This man single-handedly shaped the world to the point that the effects can still be seen today; his exploits are preeminent in the history of warfare; Pressfield just doesn't come close to conveying this. It feels like this is an abridged version of a more in-depth and better book.

Honestly, it feels like Pressfield's heart is just not in this novel. With all of his prior books, I could sense a real love and dedication to what he was writing--it just seems lacking here. The book also suffers from a serious lack of an antagonist. Tides of War created a credible anti-hero, and Gates of Fire made you despise the Persians, or if nothing else, root for the Spartans. You don't really grow to despise or admire Alexander in this book at all, which is a sign of poor character development. Also, his prior novels truly built toward something; Gates of Fire towards Thermopylae, Tides of War towards the fall of Athens. This is why Virtues of War could have benefitted from a serial approach--the first book could have covered the Persian Wars, the next could cover the rest, etc. Instead, landmark battles and events have practically been left out altogether. I was apart of the minority that liked Tides of War, but that novel too would have worked better as a series.

The battles, arguably the scene-stealers in all of Pressfield's books, are decidely underwhelming here. He seems more interested in providing us with the exact strategies and movements that were used as opposed to the graphic depiction of the actual carnage wrought by these very strategies. The manner in which this is expounded upon is quite awkward; it's difficult to describe it, but those that have read the book will understand.

All in all, it's not that this is a poor book, but going by the standards Pressfield has left for us to judge him by, it is a disappointment. It doesn't do justice to one of the greatest military commanders and leaders to ever walk the earth. The book is just too brief to convey the scope of what Alexander was and did.

Pressfield, like most historical fiction writers, has chosen to take the benevolent philosopher-conqueror persona of Alexander as the central personality in this book. I doubt he would have used a first-person narrative if he'd wanted to write something more historically accurate.

It's this first person point-of-view and Pressfield's gift for hightening tension and drama and capturing the "bonds of brotherhood" between soldiers that make this such an enjoyable read.

Make no mistake, though, Pressfield's primary historical sources are Alexander propogandists, and his Alexander seems to be more a fictional character that shares the same name than the actual figure.

I'd recommend that anyone interested in the real Alexander after reading this get a copy of good Alexander biography, Peter Green's is excellent.

If you are looking for a historical novel of great psychological depth that explores the complexities of one of history's more enigmatic figures, look elsewhere. Alexander the Great was not a personality of more complexity than any one of us. The only subject he excelled at, the only one he showed any interest in, was war. Pressfield has no gripping passages describing an anguished Alexander locked in a moral debate with himself over the justness of his cause or the legitimacy of his methods, because there is no historical evidence that Alexander had any such doubts. "Since I was prepared to pay with my own life," Pressfield's Alexander tells his father early in the novel, "so I was sanctioned to take the life of the foe."

It would be wrong, though, and Pressfield conveys this well, to conclude that Alexander lacked human feelings or emotion. Within his realm of war Alexander comes across as a believable human being, perhaps much like Patton or Guderian had they been absolute rulers of their countries instead of merely talented generals. Alexander, in the speech just quoted, is not justifying butchery, but explaining to a skeptical father how he can fraternize with members of the enemy's elite fighting units, even exchange gifts with them, and then slaughter them quickly and efficiently the next day.

Indeed, creating strong emotional bonds was and is the foundation of a unit's fighting power. So Alexander can trade barracks banter with sergeants one minute and bawl tears with his senior commanders the next. He sleeps on a rude campaign cot and shares all the privations of the march. At one point near the end of their 22,000 mile campaign, he bares his chest and asks if any of his now reluctant compatriots can show more battle scars than he. I know of no book that excels this one in drawing the portrait of leadership.

Alexander realizes that emotional bonds and the valor they inspire are not enough. There are no finer warriors, no better unit on the planet than the Theban Sacred Band, bringing Alexander to tears of admiration as he talks with them before Chaeronea. Yet he kills them all, with the exception of 20 or so who are too wounded even to commit suicide. As Alexander says to his page when recounting the battle years later, Thebes and its Sacred Band, for all their virtues, lost because they did not understand modern warfare.

Alexander does. Valor wins fights, but cold, clear intelligence wins battles. He commands a standing army whose officers and men have not just mastered the art of phalanx warfare, they have invented deceptive ways to turn the phalanx's strengths into exploitable weaknesses. Alexander leads a true combined arms team, perhaps the world's first, using both infantry and cavalry, each employed to play off of the strengths of the other. Except for its weapons, Alexander's is a thoroughly modern force. This is not Pressfield's imagination but historical fact--Alexander was perhaps the first practitioner of "maneuver warfare" in the West (Sun Tzu, by comparison, lived roughly 100 years before him) and one of the inspirations for today's US Marine Corps doctrine.

So join the expedition, and for a few moments you will feel what it would have been like to be dead tired, caught up in the heat, dust, din, and gore of Gaugamela, and suddenly hear the Persian commander call your name, "Iskander!" and think to yourself, "I love the man" as you exert every ounce of strength to strike him down.

being in the military i love to read anything about Alexander the Great and ancient Greece.I had read Mr. Pressfield's previous books and i can honestly say this one is a worthy entry. I could feel like i was on the battlefields right next to Alexander and his companions. A MUST READ!

Nice and very personal in some descriptions, e.g. the battle scenes, but Pressfield leaves huge holes in his story of Alexander the Great. What happened, for example, with the conquest of the cities in Near Asia, where is Egypt, what about the long journey home from India?

Compared to Pressfield's earlier books, Tides of War and Gates of Fire, surprisingly disappointing.

Steven Pressfield takes you into the mind of Alexander the Great and allows you a glimpse of what it was like to be a conqueror. I found it to be a wonderful character study and how great men inspire others to follow them anywhere against all odds.

Much better history, much more gripping battle descriptions, and much more authentic history. Why read a fictionalized account of Alexander the Great when the non-fiction version is even more exciting. Of the books I have recently read on Alexander, Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy is the best.

There seem to be two schools of writing around the exploits of Alexander the Great: the romantic, and the historical. The romantic presents Alexander as a sensitive soul, in love with friend and foe alike - a benevolent sort of warlord. The romantic view applies to both novelists and (unfortunately) some historians. The historical school (when not of the romantic ilk) tends to present an Alexander less sensitive and much crueler than the myth allows. Simple case in point: who engineered Phillip's assasination? The romantics don't know, or don't care; the historians make a case for Alexander's complicity. Steven Pressfield comes out of the romantic pack, and his Alexander falls short of his best work, landing somewhere in the area of a tactical handbook for Alexander's military genius, and the usual warlord with a heart of gold clap-trap. Too bad, but Mr. Pressfield's other books share the same problem, albeit with more vibrant battle scenes. Considering the more compelling fiction on the market, and the interesting histories, I'd recommend a pass on this one.

Disregard all the pretentious blather by the 5-star raters. They must be friends of the author or in league with the publisher.

This latest pseudo-historical is nothing more than glorification of an idealized western conquerer who was more akin to Peter Pan ad Michael Jackson than Genghis Khan. That's right, Alexander was known to invite 'pretty little boys' to share his tent during the evenings--and it wasn't for milk and cookies.. How come most Historians and books about Alexander leave out the telling nugget of information.

As for the rest of the book, there are some interesting moments when topics related to battle tactics, logistics and strategy are covered. Otherwise, the book seems to pander to the Hollywood crowd looking for the next Braveheart or Troy where central hero gives a motivational speech before the killing begins.

If you must read this book, check it out from the library and save the trees.

Great work that gives a unique perspective about this complicated and fabled leader of the past. I think it's Pressfiled's best, with a fresh and enjoyable style of writing. Definitely one of the better historical novels I have read.