Customer Reviews

Empire of Ashes: A Novel of Alexander the Great

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

After being disenchanted with Steven Pressfield's recent fictional foray into the Alexander legend, the temptation to take another plunge was irresistible. Although Empire of Ashes is a far better story, and quite a bit more imaginative than the Pressfield thing, it still fails to fully capture the essence of this truly remarkable historical figure.

From an historical standpoint, it is undisputed that Alexander had all of the qualities that made one a superb leader. First, he was a brilliant battlefield tactician, with a superior understanding of his weapons, from cavalry to infantry to siege capabilities; and he had an uncanny ability to come up with plans that utilized these strengths and exploited his enemy's weaknesses. Secondly, he was as fierce a warrior as anyone in his army, and was often in the vanguard of his forces at the critical, make-or-break moment of the battle. Lastly he was great motivator. Whether by speech or example, he was able to get his army to accomplish more than any military force in history to that time.

Nicastro's narrator, an Athenian who tagged along, deconstructs the Alexander legend in every way. To begin with, he wasn't a tactician at all. Instead, it was his half-wit, half-brother Arrideaus--whose presence has been wiped clean from history by Alexander's lieutenants-- who came up with his brilliant battle plans. Alexander's fierce demeanor on the battlefield is acknowledged, but it was a ferocity based on recklessness--a life-long, all-consuming death-wish--rather than leadership or bravery. And although he is given some credit for his motivational skills, we are told that his generals, particularly Parmenion, deserved at least as much credit. All of this is interesting conjecture and makes sense within the confines of the story, but it is certainly dispiriting to the reader, who, while not necessarily expecting to see Alexander portrayed as a god, was not expecting him to be portrayed as such an ineffectual boob either.

This is a shame because the novel otherwise contains some very nice moments. Here is the narrator's description of the eighteen-year old Alexander when he first meets him, after the battle of Chaeronea. He had, "fine, long hair," but with a, "stringy, oily quality of it which gave the impression of being perpetually wet . . . It fell in unrestrained sweeps around his face--a face that was not without a certain dignity, but coarse, big-boned, and full of pimples." This is the kind of thing that historical fiction aficionados love; a vivid bit of detail with the solid ring of truth, and something which is not ordinarily found in the history books.

He also comes up with plausible explanations for some of the legend and controversy which surrounds Alexander. For example, Alexander truly made an effort to untie the Gordian knot, but his slashing of it was not an act of genius, but instead of angry frustration in front of embarrassed onlookers, and he had to hack at it twenty times before severing it. His decision to burn Persepolis, the most splendid city in Persia, was made for no other reason than that it was suggested by a Greek strumpet during yet another drunken binge. There are dozens of other examples, all of which are clever and within the realm of credibility individually, but all of which, alas, cast Alexander in a less-than-favorable if not unsavory light. Taken as a whole, the picture they paint of him doesn't quite pass the smell test.

It's a good story, though, detailed and engrossing. It is not, however, the definitive fictional portrait of Alexander. For that we must continue to wait.

Wow, I get it - you don't like Alexander the Great! According to the author, Alexander was physically ugly, had a repulsive personality, and owed all his battlefield successes to his half-wit sibling. Not quite the same picture of Alexander that history has painted for us. Part of me wonders why anyone would write a book like this (you even had to attack his looks, for goodness sake??!!); another part wonders how these books get published. Reader beware - if you're looking for a good piece of historical fiction featuring Alexander the Great, look elsewhere.

If you want to read about Alexander you start with Plutarch's The Age of Alexander or Arrian's Penguin Classics Campaigns Of Alexander where one can learn real history and not some fictuous non sense found in this book from Nicastro's pathetic attempt to write history.

This book seems to be the victim of more misunderstanding that any ancient epic I've seen recently. What the author is doing here is telling the history of Alexander from the point of view of a fictional character. But this character, Machon, does represent a real group of ancient commentators (especially in democratic Athens) who were not so enamored of King Alexander during his lifetime. Machon is on trial for his life for portraying Alex as a human, not a god--for having flaws. This should hardly be a controversial position for modern readers! Yet some readers are so married to their heroic, idealizing image of Alexander that they've attacked the book and the author. This is unfortunate and unfair--the author is not the same as the narrator.

On the contrary, I think we need more novels about ancient subjects that take chances, like this one. When the story of Alexander becomes just a dull litany of triumphs, his story is effectively dead. Long live Alexander!

Empire of Ashes is the yin to The Virtues of War's yang (Steven Pressfield's brilliant novel about Alexander). Though the books are polar opposites in terms of how they attempt to cut through the myth of Alexander, they complement each other perfectly. While Pressfield's Alexander is noble, surrounded by valor and driven by his ideals, Nicastro's Alexander is a deeply flawed young man surrounded by scheming opportunists, and often unable to cope with the enormity of his endeavor.

Each book alone is a wonderful read, but together, Virtues of War and Empire of Ashes create a wonderful three-dimensional study of one of history's most interesting and perplexing characters.

Like Pressfield, Nicastro is a brilliant writer with enormous talent. If you are still on the fence about Empire of Ashes, hop off and dive into it. You'll be glad you did.

As the other reviewer said, the author really goes out of his way to make you hate Alexander the Great. I suspect that most of the stories in here that depict him as such a bad person are the author's own hare-brained fabrications as well. Not that I would want to read a panegyric either, but this work just has no respect for the guy.

I give it 2 stars because the prose was enjoyable and I liked the Machon character.

This is the second book I've read from this author. Absolutely no dull moments here.
I have no real knowledge about Alexander, so I cannot venture an opinion into the veracity of this work, but as a "good read" I have to say that it IS that. Nicastro's eye for detail brings the reader to ground-level. You feel that you're walking the streets, noticing the sweat, the smells, it is a hypnotic experience to read the book.

It really makes me want to read more. I love historical fiction, and I would love to see Nicastro, this author, specifically, tackle some of my favorite personalities in history- but since most of them are pretty darn obscure, I guess that won't happen.

In any case, the book did not disappoint. I paid it the ultimate compliment by reading passages aloud to my wife. Yet another triumph. Can't wait to get my next order from this author. I heartily recommend it to all who want to curl up in a chair on a cold night and have a good, exciting read.

I recently forced myself to read this book and was astonished at how far this revisionist and entirely unsupported negative slant on perhaps historys greatest general went to destroy the icon. Cassander himself hardly did a better "hatchet" job. Often the truth lies between two extremes Alexander was probably no saint but neither was he a devil. I suppose each must choose the version of history they feel most at ease with and in that vein I feel far more comfortable with Manfredi's work and Renault's. The Athenian pederasts like Demosthenes hated everything Makedonian even before Philip's son helped his father crush them and Thebes at Charonea.
After he captured and refused to free the Athenian mercenary traitors and prisoners from his battle at the Granicus, the once great city state of Athens declined both in influence and reason. They never would admit to their part in helping Greece's ancient enemies (the Persians) fight the young Makedonian king. This book about an Athenian with an axe to grind and a preconceived hatred of Alexander maybe tells the tale well enough from that biased view but does nothing to bring any fresh insight into who he was or what he did for Greece and Helenistic culture.

Machon's story is entirely fiction, but it is still compelling and rich in detail. The premise for his trail in Athens may be somewhat contrieved, but it provides a means for the author to bring the character of Alexander to life. Machon paints a somewhat dark impression of Alexander's Persian conquest. He surrounds him with a group of ugly syncophants who in the end sought any means to betray him. The method of first person narative provides a very personalized view, obviously something the author desired. Here Machon can bad-mouth many of the famous personages of the period in an effective manner. The book has been heavily influenced by the works of Victor Hansen Davis who is famed for his views on ancient warfare. Hanson also his many negective ideas about Alexander which no doubt have influenced the author's perspective here.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the novel is the contention that Alexander used a secret half-brother sired from one of his father's many liasons with courtisans. Machon's supposed testimony was that he was the hidden genius behind Alexander's exploits. This has a lot of conspiracy theory feel about it, but it does force one to consider that we do know actually very little about Alexander directly, and that his amazing exploits might very well have had assistence from a variety of sources. We know that he uesd look-alikes at times, as when trying to fool Porus at the Hydaspes River during the Indian campaign. Some readers may have a problem with this theory, but again this is Machon's testimony, and he is a fictional character! It makes for entertaining reading while the author goes over Alexander's career. Some aspects of the chronology of events may be off, but overall this is a well done work of fiction which should inspire the reader to check out one of the many current biographies on the subject.

This is the third novel I've read by Nicholas Nicastro and he has officially become one of my favorite authors. His latest novel on Alexander the Great is his best to date. He exceeds the skillful character development he attained in his novels about John Paul Jones. As well, Nicastro manages to mix historical fact and fiction in the most entertaining fashion. And his third book adds an extra kick--packed with action on and off the battlefield. Weighing in at just over 350 pages, I read the book in one sitting. I couldn't wait to find out what happened to Alexander and the man accused of involvement in his ultimate demise. I hope Nicastro has another book ready to publish.