Customer Reviews

A Murder in Macedon (Mystery of Alexander the Great)

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

 

 

I've seen Phillip's tomb, and early next year I'm starting in Thessaloniki and following Alexander's trail through parts of Turkey. So, I'm reading everything I can get hold of on Alexander. I enjoyed both Alexander books by Apostolou. I also read the two Alexander books by P.C. Doherty. I noticed some of the language in the two series's is the same. I've never come across the phrase, "He pulled a face" before, so I speculated they were the same author. It turns out, that's true.

There have been a couple of negative reviews here from people insisting on historical accuracy and pointing out alleged flaws. OK. That's their right. Interestingly, the reviews on the Doherty side of the house are almost universally rave reviews.

Fascinating.

Historical mysteries are all the rage now, and so we come to the murder of a king in Ancient Greece, replete with conspiracy, intrigue, and witchcraft. Such novels are harder to write than regular detective novels: in addition to the mystery needing to be good, the historical aspects need to be good also. Here the author succeeds reasonably well, and the result is a good book, worth reading if you're interested in Greek history or mysteries.

I had only a sketchy knowledge of the murder of Philip of Macedon prior to this book, but what I saw in the book was good. The king is killed during a public ceremony by one of his own guards, who is about to escape, but killed by the guards under circumstances that make it look as if he was never intended to escape at all. There's also another assassin who's been killed, further confusing things.

The detective protagonist is the most interesting character in the book, a Jewish woman whose brother is a scribe for the king himself. Once the king is dead, Alexander (soon to be the Great) asks the woman and her brother to look into the murder, and what she finds is fun and intriguing. There's a spurned wife who indulges in witchcraft, and [unintellegent] son who seems harmless but is looking for a suspicious knife, a crafty old general who's scheming for power, a pair of brothers who are pretenders to the throne, etc. All of these are suspects, and Miriam, must sort through them and figure out who might or might not have done it.

Miriam and her brother are interesting characters, and the solution is believable, if a bit far-fetched. I would recommend the book, and will be looking for the sequel.

Anna Apostolou (Also known as Paul C. Doherty) has asked a fantastic question. While we know it was the disgruntled Pausanias who killed the one eyed King Philip II of Macedon, we don't know exactly who pulled the strings of his killer. Was it the wicked Queen Olympias- his scheming ex-wife and mother of Alexander? Or was it his heir- the cocky young Prince Alexander himself? Could it have been his sworn enemy- the powerful King Darius of Persia? Who gained the most from King Philip's death? Anna Apostolou creates a brother and sister team, Jewish twins Miriam and Simeon, (close friends of Alexander) to work on solving the mystery. Alexander insists he has nothing to do with it, and instructs Miriam to find out for him.

While some have complained that boorish, womanizing, King Philip isn't even killed until sixty pages into the book, I found this refreshing. By then, I had actually grown to like Philip. This itself was amazing, because I've disliked him in every other historical fiction featuring Alexander the Great that I've read. I was also glad to see Alexander's, often overlooked, half brother Arrhidaeus continuously throughout the story. (The half-wit later known to some as Philip III of Macedon did actually rule for a short time after Alexander the Great's death.) I applaud how the author left clues along the way, and allowed Miriam to figure out what happened, but still GREATLY surprised me in the end with what was discovered by Miriam. I never even saw it coming! Anna Apostolou's answer is fascinating- and seems exactly like something that would have happened. Very clever indeed!

I'm looking forward to the next story about Alexander the Great and his friends Miriam and Simeon- A Murder in Thebes (St. Martin's Minotaur Mysteries). Not everything is tied up nicely. I want to know what will happen to Olympias. Will she continue to scheme? Will Alexander's newly returned companions support him on his future campaigns? Does anything come of Miriam's affection for Alexander, and what does Simeon think of it?

Historical fiction about Alexander the Great that I also recommend: The Alexander the Great trilogy by Mary Renault Fire from Heaven, The Persian Boy, Funeral Games; Melissa Scott's historical fiction about Alexander the Great turning towards Rome A Choice of Destinies; and Judith Tarr's Alexander the Great historical fiction told from an Egyptian point of view Lord of the Two Lands

Anna Apostolou takes us down History Lane in yet another of Paul Doherty's time-line mysteries, "A Murder in Macedon." And while Doherty's English historical mysteries are exciting, and informative, reading, Apostolou takes the Oliver Stone approach to revealing the vagaries of the past. (Apostolou is one of Doherty's pseudonyms.) It seems to be Stone's premise that "if you thought the real history was exciting, wait until you see how I dress it up." And much the same way, Apostolou takes us back to the time of Alexander the Great of Macedon. We find Alexander, troubled, quick-to-temper, and eager to be king in his own right, having to deal with the assassination of his father, Phillip, the Macedonian king. Between his own irreverences with his father and the plottings of his mother Olympias, whom Phillip has recently divorced in favor of a younger, more beautiful princess, there is reason for Alexander to feel that everyone will believe that he was involved in the assassination of his father. Apostolou introduces us to Hebrew twins Miriam and Simeon, both of whom Alexander trusts. Young Alexander is barely 20 and naturally, at first, fears his own life in the aftermath of the regicide. Indeed, as Shakespeare's Henry V said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." His friends come to his rescue. Apostolou introduces us to a number of plots, all plausible, of course. And it is at the hands of Miriam and Simeon that, ultimately, the "truth" is revealed. Basically, the story is exciting reading; however, historical scholars won't be quick to embrace the theories offered. For instance, Apostolou directly involves Demosthenes in the assassination. Demosthenes, the great Athenian orator, did oppose Phillip's rule--and plans--for the conquered Athens and ultimately was exiled when Alexander later took over; however, no proof exists that he arranged for Phillip's death. And while, perhaps, it makes for intriguing reading, I have problems with fictional writers taking such liberties! Apostolou does cite her sources, to give the author some credit, of course. And, of course, the spellings of the names may alter, owing to different translators' versions. History should not be altered, or even managed, just to create an exciting story, however! Otherwise, happy reading. The story moves well and the author's presentation of the characters seems adequate in keeping with the whole intrigue. In fact, Alexander's portrayal seems partly in keeping with history. And, after all, when it comes to interpretation of character based upon historical research, Apostolou's opinion has to be a credible as anyone else's. There is the sequel, of course, as Apostolou concludes this novel without dispensing of Olympias, the quintessential "plotter and schemer." Some historians claim that Alexander later had her executed for her involvement in this, and other, nefarious acts. (She does not seem to be a person one would love to meet.) We'll have to wait to see how Apostolou takes care of her! This book ends, too, just as Alexander is getting ready to start his campaigns to conquer the known world. Further revelations--some might call it "manipulations--will come in the next installment titled "A Murder in Thebes."

I admit that I only read the first third of this book so can't really make a judgment on the plot, but I simply couldn't justify wasting my time reading the whole thing. Numerous minor historical inacuracies can be quite annoying but cannot, in themselves, ruin a book completely. What makes this novel unreadable for me is how utterly unbelievable the characters are. They do not seem like they could possibly be real people (as a good novel makes characters), which is ironic because, unlike those in most novels, they actually WERE. Alexander's idiot brother is quite affronting, as he seems to be constantly scratching his genitals. Miriam, who many reviewers seem to like, is completly unrealistic because woman were not allowed to run free as she did-- even in the "backward" kingdom of Macedon, women were greatly segregated from, and subserviant to, men. I could go on about Olympias's satanic character and her invented "divorce," but why beat a dead horse? I am probably quite spoiled by historical novels by fantastic authors like Mary Renault and am not really one to get into mysteries, but I am a self-proclaimed Alexander nut, and when a story about him does not excite me in the least, there is certainly something wrong with it.

Anachronisms abound: spinning wheels (should be distaffs), a reference to a work "allegedly written by David" (sounds like modern historical criticism, not ancient thinking), banners and pennants (are we in a medieval setting?), panic attacks (modern psychobabble). Furthermore, the sheer number historical errors mount up, including mispellings (who is "Niarchos?" [NEarchUs], the city of "Olympus" [OlyNTHus] and the "Lynkestrians" [Lynkestian]); misrelationships (Kleopatra was Alex's full sister, Alexander of Epiros Olympias' full brother); and plain simple errors of fact (7 Bodyguards, not 12; Medea was in Euripides' play "Medea" not the "Bacchae").

Mr. Doherty needed to consult a historian or two--badly.

Furthermore, the writing suffers from flip-flopping point of view until that the reader occasionally loses sight of who's head he is in, sex and violence appear gratuitously, and the characterizations are simplistic and ill-drawn.

I won't even attempt to address the problem of Jews at the court of Philip *before* Alexander's march east. Maybe. But highly unlikely.

In short, a waste of money. One can only hope he is more careful with the sequel (although I don't hold out much hope). What makes it all particularly unhappy is that the murder of Philip II of Macedon is one of the great whodunnits of history!

This book deals with one of the great mysteries in history - who killed Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. My biggest complaint with this novel is the author's note. The author states that Alexander's character is very much as found in the historical documents; "rather shy, self-effacing, suffering from panic attacks, and very shy of women." Not quite. Every ancient source portrays him as gregarious, prone to excessive ego and ambition, incredibly bold and often reckless. There is no indication he was shy around women, rather that he was somewhat disinterested in them sexually until his mid-20's. Alexander had conquered the known world by his 30th birthday, and one has to question the author's opinion of his character.

For those who wish to make up their minds for themselves about Alexander's character, I recommend A.B. Bosworth's excellent, "Conquest and Empire, the Reign of Alexander the Great," available, of course, from Amazon.com.

This is a novel by Paul Doherty writing as he so often does under a pseudonym. Paul Doherty is the consummate professional when it comes to writing historical mystery novels. I for one do not know how he can be so prolific with his offering of books and yet make sure that each of them is well researched. Whether they be 13th, 14th, or fifteenth century they are always true to the period. He also writes about Ancient Egypt and now he has taken to writing about Alexander the Great

In the days following the death of Philip of Macedon there is no guiding hand on either the people or the army, but waiting in the wings is Philip's son Alexander. Little do the people know that soon they will have one of the greatest men who ever lived leading them. Even his name will tell it's own story, Alexander the Great, also know as Alexander III, son of Philip of Macedon and Olympias, princess of Epirus, daughter of King Neoptolemus.

Alexander set out to find the murderer of his father with the help of two Hebrew friends, Miriam and Simeon. Much will happen to them on the quest to seek out the slayer of Alexander's father.

Some of the historical facts may offend the purists as they have been twisted beyond recognition in certain areas. But the book is a novel written to entertain and should be treated as such.

I don't regularly read mysteries, but I read lots of books about the great king Alexander. This book looks at the murder of King Philip (Alexander's human father). There are still many unanswered questions about Philip's death, and Apostalou (Paul Dougherty using a pseudonym) gives a satisfying, if not valid, reasoning behind it.

The reason I didn't give it 5 stars is that there's enough that seems to be historically invalid that an Alexandrophile will quibble.

All-in-all, a very enjoyable read!

I am a real fan of Ancient Greece in fiction....and looked forward to reading this novel with a great deal of interest.

But while the premise is an excellent one...some ideas should be left as just that, ideas, or at least they should be presented to more capable hands.

Apart from the numerous historical inaccuracies...the references to the authors of this time read like name dropping...the story centers on the efforts of a Jewish maiden, Miriam, to uncover the identity of Phillip of Macedon's murderer, not on Alexander, and the entire story suffers from stilted conversations, contrived circumstances, and a lack of time spent researching the actual daily lives of these people.

The characters are mere caricatures of the actual persons involved in the story, and even the 'invented' characters suffer from a serious lack of development and 'fleshing out'. The revelation of a character's involvement in the murder at the end is anti-climactic, as the character was never really given much importance in the story.

The author's note at the end attempts to justify the contents with claims that there is historical evidence to support most of the action, and the speculations made are at least partly grounded in fact. That part I can accept...but while the story centers on a murder...the greatest crime of the novel is the novel itself. It suffers greatly from lack of actual time spent researching the time period, and only the few facts and suppositions gleaned by the author prior to writing it that appear in the novel in no way qualify it as good historical fiction.

Nice try, Anna Apostolou, but many have done it better.