Customer Reviews

Alexander the Great

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

It seems to me that if Alexander somehow had access to this book during his glory days he would be very pleased. He would probably give author Philip Freeman a big box full of gold coins, for Alexander was well known for lavishing gifts on his loyal soldiers and supporters. He would likely grant Freeman high rank as court historian. Freeman's Alexander is a heroic figure, on the scale of Alexander's personal hero, Achilles. Freeman's Alexander is keenly intelligent, capable of quick, decisive action, and brave to the point of recklessness. He was also very knowledgeable.

Aristotle was his tutor. Alexander himself had mastered such works as Homer's epic poems, Euripides, and Herodotus. He made it a point to carefully study anything that might help him prevail. He eagerly tapped the minds of the many experts he brought with him. He had a brilliant grasp of human nature.

Alexander's soldiers, particularly his fellow Macedonians, adored him and would fight to the death for him. Unlike Achilles, he was not one to sit and pout in his tent as his soldiers died. His soldiers had often seen him lead cavalry charges at massive enemy forces, scale walls in the face of spears and arrows, kill scores of hostile soldiers on the battlefield, and suffer alongside his soldiers from exhaustion, thirst, and extremes of heat and cold. He endured the crossing of mountains, deserts, and raging rivers. He led his armies in an incredible twelve-year campaign that extended his rule from Macedonia and Greece to include the vast Persian empire and regions far beyond. He came to control, after fierce fighting, a substantial portion of India.

Freeman describes many epic battles in a highly readable manner. No dry battle tactics here. Freeman has clearly mastered a vast array of sources, but feels no need to throw in arcane bits here and there. The book includes such diverse topics as Alexander's brutally ambitious mother Olympias, his beloved horse Bucephalas, and the death of Cleitus, Alexander's loyal lieutenant who had once saved him in battle.

Alexander also emerges as a man who could be quite cruel, sanctioning the slaughter and enslavement of many thousands of men, women, and children associated with those who dared to defy him and made his soldiers suffer. Yet, he could be forgiving and very generous. As he extended his rule over a vast realm, he kept many Persian and other native officials in power, if they submitted to his rule. He also respected local customs and religious beliefs.

There is an extensive glossary and an annotated bibliography. In large part, Freeman looked at sources such as Plutarch and Arrian, which have been thoroughly raked over before. But he builds a lively narrative that reads like an exciting adventure. I knew quite well how Alexander's quest for "world" conquest would end, but I remained enthralled to the end.

These are the factors to which the ancient historians ascribed Alexander's uncharacteristic action of burning the Great King's palace at Persepolis. As author Phillip Freeman describes that night, the reader is transported to a world of intrigue, mystery, cruelty, and excess. It makes for interesting and engaging reading.

Too bad that much of the rest of this book seems overly dry and disconnected. Historians writing books directed to lay readership often produce what is neither fish nor fowl - works that are not fully satisfying to serious scholars or casual readers. Freeman's Alexander the Great falls unfortunately into this category.

The story of Alexander is in itself remarkable and so the book is readable, but it should be so much more. This is basically a recounting of facts quite devoid of the life and color that should have accompanied it. Where Freeman fails is in relating the facts to the context of the ancient world, and characterizing this in a way that modern readers can connect with.

I'd recommend reading the historical fiction of Mary Renault (Fire From Heaven, The Persian Boy) in conjunction with Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon instead.

From the hinterland of Greece, this 21 year old Macedonian "boy king" with 50,000 soldiers, travelled thousands of miles on foot (some horses also) 2,300 years ago, over and through unbelievable obstacles, breath takingly conquering most of the known world. No arm chair general here...Alexander personally fights hand to hand, all the way through 12 years of ancient glory.

This is a book that begs to be read. The author presents a finely told story for you to discover. He also departs occasionally to speak directly to us with clarifications, and intersperses many vignettes of present day interest during the trek.

This would make an Oscar winning Hollywood spectacular, if Cecil B. DeMille was still around....and I read the book almost as fast as it would take to watch the movie.

Freeman's biography of Alexander the Great will grab you by the throat and won't let go. It's a riveting story that you will be sorry to see come to an end.

Apart from telling the story of Alexander's life well, Freeman does a good job of noting the inconsistencies among the ancient sources and acknowledging that some of that record consists of myth and politically expedient legends. Also, his insights concerning Alexander's motives and character are quite persuasive. And I think he is spot on when he suggests that Alexander didn't simply use religion to advance his political and military objectives; rather, he actually believed the gods were with him.

One shortcoming of the book is the absence of any battle maps. For some of the key military engagements, it would have been nice to have had a couple of drawings showing the deployment of forces and the topography of the battlefield. (For those who want this additional level of detail, I recommend the recently published "The Landmark Arrian." It is exceptional.)

In sum, while I still believe Lane Fox's biography is a bit more scholarly and thorough, you can't beat Freeman's effort for the shear entertainment value. And if you like this book, then pick up Freeman's biography of Julius Caesar. It was quite good.

This was a very well written biography of Alexander. I would recommend it highly to anyone who is interested in Alexander the Great. Ultimately, the author makes the claim that he wants to write it like a story instead of in the normally dry scholarly tone. I would mostly say he succeeds; however, it's not a page turning piece of hybrid fiction that will satisfy all. Allot of historical books are very difficult for "young" students to get through. Here you never feel like you have to stop, and look up to see what in the hell the author is talking about. His dedication at the beginning is to his students and he succeeds in writing an interesting introduction to a fascinating man.

As a former history teacher I was familiar with most of Alexander's escapades, but I guess I didn't know he was quite as ruthless as Freeman shows.

There's some question whether Alexander had something to do with the death of his father. Philip was murdered by one of his guards, a former lover, and prior to his death Alexander was somewhat estranged from his father. He also plotted the deaths of many of his generals who had been loyal to his father. Parmenion, Alexander's chief general at the Battles of Issus and Gaugamela, was among that number, and old Antipater who had been left in charge in Greece during Alexander's push into Persia was on the chopping block when Alexander died. He was completely ruthless on the field of battle as well. If a tribe resisted Alexander's takeover, they were all massacred, including women and children.

That's not to say that Alexander did not have a compassionate side. In one instance a soldier who mistakenly sat on Alexander's throne was forgiven. Alexander also suffered sincere remorse after killing a childhood friend in a fit of temper after the man questioned his leadership. Alexander also treated Darius's family with respect after the Battle of Gaugamela.

I was aware of Alexander's tactical prowess at Issus but it was his refusal to accept defeat that was most impressive. There's an episode where his men were slaughtered as they tried to move through a narrow pass just before Persepolis. He found a goatherd who knew of a trail around the pass, but the goatherd insisted an army couldn't make it around. Alexander's army waded through snow up to their chests and came at the Persians from the rear. In another instance the Phoenician town of Tyre was said to be impregnable because of its 19 foot walls and its location a half mile out to sea. Alexander built a causeway out to the city, despite constant assaults from the Phoenician navy.

Freeman downplays Alexander's homosexuality, saying that Alexander would have been surprised it was even an issue with modern readers. The Greeks did not think women were capable of pure love and most were bi-sexual. Freeman does mention Alexander's lover Bagoas, the Persian eunuch, and Alexander's best friend, Hephaestion, is an "intimate companion." Roxanne, the mother of Alexander's heir, is mentioned but she never comes to life.

The Macedonian soldiers were also impressive in an unexpected way. They disapproved of "proskynesis" a Persian tradition of prostrating yourself before the Great King. Defeated Persian people would do this when given an audience. The Macedonian soldiers refused and made sport of Alexander's notion of being the son of Zeus, usually out of earshot. They'll remind you a bit of American soldiers. They were rewarded handsomely for defeating the Persians, but Alexander expected a lot and it didn't look like he'd ever be satisfied.

For a HUGE fan of the legandary Alexander, this books was such a gift. Other books I've read mainly quote from ancient Alexander historians like Plutarch, written over 2000 yrs ago. So they were tough reads. So much that I think a casual reader would have a hard time getting into. This book reads as well as any Bio I've read on The Beatles. It also seems to give as much inside knowledge and new information and stories as I could have ever hoped for. I'd prided myself on knowing most of what there is to know about Alexander. How wrong I was. Anyone interested at all in the great man or are fans of ancient history. This book is a must have, order today read.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and felt like it moved at a good pace. I came in knowing very little about Alexander and left with a greater understanding of not only what he did, but who he was as well.

Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman was very well written and the entertainment value was quite exquisite from the boring rabble of past books written by modern historians. We start with the Freeman's description of the world that surrounded Alexander before his time. Freeman notes that the Macedonians were quite proud of the fact that they were not Greeks and later on that they were a warrior race equal to the Persians who rather enjoyed the cultures and customs of the peoples they conquered. He casts obvious doubt of the Royal Macedonian claims of being descendents of Hercules and even doubts that they descended from Greeks (Perdicas and his two brothers) who came from Argos and established a kingdom in Macedonia.
We then move along to Philip II and his captivity, if you want to even call it that, in Thebes. He learns military tactics from the Thebans especially of the phalanx which later helps him create the Macedonian phalanx with their Sarissas. Philip fights back enemy incursions on his land, destroys his enemies within his court, and moves on to become father of Alexander. Philip and his estranged relationship with Olympia, his wife and mother of Alexander, show that this Epirote princess had strange bedtime rituals she shared with snakes to Philip's horror. He felt that she was cursing him and his kingdom so he rarely had any intercourse with her. Later on Philip would call doubt of being the father of Alexander.
Philip would eventually teach Alexander what he knew and would get him the best teacher of all time to school him, Aristotle. Philip would later become the undisputed ruler of the city-states and would force the Greeks to a Macedonian-Greek alliance so he could go into Persia and begin a campaign eastward. Freeman would count Isocrates, an orator, with the establishment of the myth of a pan-hellenic endeavor to fight the Persians as a unified Greek people. Philip and Alexander after him would utilize this myth for their propaganda in getting what they wanted out of the city-states for as Freeman would state in his book Alexander wanted the conquest in Persia to be a Macedonian conquest and cared little to share it with the Greeks.
What really is great about Freeman is that he makes the story of Alexander come to light with how the historians of antiquity were never really on the same page. Alexander is more myth than man in some books. Freeman, however, shows the reader how much of a human he really is. I gave this review 4 stars only because as good as it is it not close to the opus of Peter Green's Alexander the Great. That as well as the fact that he claims that the Vergina royal tombs house Philip II when in fact many professionals agree that it was not Philip but more than likely Alexander's half brother from Philip who suffered a mental handicap. Besides this little oversight the book is well written and exciting to read.

I'm not much on ancient history. I've read a couple of books on Alexander and one or two on Hannibal, but that's pretty much it. This biography of Alexander is pretty cursory, but that in some ways makes it good: the author takes care to include those things that he thinks are important, and leaves everything else out. The result is a book that gives you the essence of the character of the King, but leaves out much of the speculation you might get elsewhere.

Alexander was an interesting fellow, and the society and culture he grew up in were interesting also. The author lays everything out in an interesting fashion, at times essentially waiting until an incident allows him to stop for a subject. As a for instance, when the author discusses one of Alexander's romantic entanglements (with another man) he takes a paragraph to digress and discuss sexuality and identity in ancient Greece. His main observation, that men had sex with other men for enjoyment, and with women to make babies, was interesting, but the more interesting take is that ancient Greeks wouldn't have understood our distinction between gay and staight. *Everyone* had sex with both genders, for different purposes.

The author discusses Alexander's battles at some length, though there aren't any battlefield diagrams and the tactics discussed are cursory at best. Alexander was one of the last commanders to wade into the fighting deliberately (his opponents tended to be the other kind of general, the one who tries to watch from a hill) and so the author spends a lot of time discussing Alexander's heroism and the way it led his army. It worked for a good long while, but in the end, when he wanted to continue on and invade India, it wasn't the troops there who defeated him; it was his own army, who couldn't see the end of the earth, when Alexander would be prevented from campaigning further. Fortunately for him, he died (of what they're not certain) before he could try and lead his army to China (which he undoubtedly would have, eventually).

This is a good book, concise enough to be readable and interesting enough to intrigue a novice like myself. I recommend it.