What do you think?
Rate this book
Οι αρετές του πολέμου
Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος (356-323 π.Χ.) έγινε βασιλιάς της Μακεδονίας σε ηλικία δεκαεννέα ετών. Έδωσε τις μεγαλύτερες μάχες του και κατέκτησε την πανίσχυρη περσική αυτοκρατορία προτού συμπληρώσεσι τα είκοσι πέντε του χρόνια. Πέθανε σε ηλικία τριάντα τριών ετών, χωρίς να ηττηθεί ποτέ. Η φήμη του ως εξαίρετου πολεμιστή και αρχηγού δεν έχει ανάλογο στα ιστορικά χρονικά.
Στο βιβλίο αυτό, ο ίδιος ο Αλέξανδρος, σε μια προσπάθεια να βρει «κάποιον που να μπορεί να ακούει χωρίς να κρίνει και που να κρατάει το στόμα του κλειστό», αφηγείται την ιστορία του: «Πάντα ήμουν στρατιώτης. Δε γνώρισα άλλη ζωή. Από παιδί ακόμη ανταποκρίθηκα στο κάλεσμα των όπλων. Δεν πόθησα τίποτε άλλο...» Αυτή λοιπόν είναι η αρχή. Μόνο η αρχή... Το πορτρέτο του μεγαλύτερου στρατηλάτη όλων των εποχών, του ανθρώπου που ήταν ικανός για τα μεγαλύτερα επιτεύγματα και τα μεγαλύτερα σφάλματα, σχηματίζεται μπροστά στα μάτια του αναγνώστη φωτισμένο από ένα καινούργιο φως.
Οι αρετές του πολέμου συνδυάζουν τον εξομολογητικό τόνο του προσωπικού ημερολογίου με την κοφτή γραφή των πολεμικών ανακοινωθέντων. Ο Στίβεν Πρέσσφιλντ ζωντανεύει με μοναδικό τρόπο ένα θρυλικό ήρωα που μπορούσε να είναι τολμηρός και ευαίσθητος, παθιασμένος και αφοσιωμένος, αλλά συγχρόνως ανάλγητος και απρόβλεπτος. Επιπλέον, περιγράφοντας αριστοτεχνικά τις συγκρούσεις και αποκαλύπτοντας τις τακτικές των αντιπάλων, ξαναζωντανεύει την αιματηρή ατμόσφαιρα των πεδίων των μαχών, φέρνοντας μπροστά στα μάτια μας ανάγλυφα μια ηρωική όσο και άγρια εποχή.
Στο βιβλίο αυτό, ο ίδιος ο Αλέξανδρος, σε μια προσπάθεια να βρει «κάποιον που να μπορεί να ακούει χωρίς να κρίνει και που να κρατάει το στόμα του κλειστό», αφηγείται την ιστορία του: «Πάντα ήμουν στρατιώτης. Δε γνώρισα άλλη ζωή. Από παιδί ακόμη ανταποκρίθηκα στο κάλεσμα των όπλων. Δεν πόθησα τίποτε άλλο...» Αυτή λοιπόν είναι η αρχή. Μόνο η αρχή... Το πορτρέτο του μεγαλύτερου στρατηλάτη όλων των εποχών, του ανθρώπου που ήταν ικανός για τα μεγαλύτερα επιτεύγματα και τα μεγαλύτερα σφάλματα, σχηματίζεται μπροστά στα μάτια του αναγνώστη φωτισμένο από ένα καινούργιο φως.
Οι αρετές του πολέμου συνδυάζουν τον εξομολογητικό τόνο του προσωπικού ημερολογίου με την κοφτή γραφή των πολεμικών ανακοινωθέντων. Ο Στίβεν Πρέσσφιλντ ζωντανεύει με μοναδικό τρόπο ένα θρυλικό ήρωα που μπορούσε να είναι τολμηρός και ευαίσθητος, παθιασμένος και αφοσιωμένος, αλλά συγχρόνως ανάλγητος και απρόβλεπτος. Επιπλέον, περιγράφοντας αριστοτεχνικά τις συγκρούσεις και αποκαλύπτοντας τις τακτικές των αντιπάλων, ξαναζωντανεύει την αιματηρή ατμόσφαιρα των πεδίων των μαχών, φέρνοντας μπροστά στα μάτια μας ανάγλυφα μια ηρωική όσο και άγρια εποχή.
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
573 people are currently reading
6,582 people want to read
About the author
Steven Pressfield
81books5,626followersI was born in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in 1943 to a Navy father and mother.
I graduated from Duke University in 1965.
In January of 1966, when I was on the bus leaving Parris Island as a freshly-minted Marine, I looked back and thought there was at least one good thing about this departure. "No matter what happens to me for the rest of my life, no one can ever send me back to this freakin' place again."
Forty years later, to my surprise and gratification, I am far more closely bound to the young men of the Marine Corps and to all other dirt-eating, ground-pounding outfits than I could ever have imagined.
GATES OF FIRE is one reason. Dog-eared paperbacks of this tale of the ancient Spartans have circulated throughout platoons of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since the first days of the invasions. E-mails come in by hundreds. GATES OF FIRE is on the Commandant of the Marine Corps' Reading list. It is taught at West Point and Annapolis and at the Marine Corps Basic School at Quantico. TIDES OF WAR is on the curriculum of the Naval War College.
From 2nd Battalion/6th Marines, which calls itself "the Spartans," to ODA 316 of the Special Forces, whose forearms are tattooed with the lambda of Lakedaemon, today's young warriors find a bond to their ancient precursors in the historical narratives of these novels.
My struggles to earn a living as a writer (it took seventeen years to get the first paycheck) are detailed in my 2002 book, THE WAR OF ART.
I have worked as an advertising copywriter, schoolteacher, tractor-trailer driver, bartender, oilfield roustabout and attendant in a mental hospital. I have picked fruit in Washington state and written screenplays in Tinseltown.
With the publication of THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE in 1995, I became a writer of books once and for all.
My writing philosophy is, not surprisingly, a kind of warrior code � internal rather than external � in which the enemy is identified as those forms of self-sabotage that I have labeled "Resistance" with a capital R (in THE WAR OF ART) and the technique for combatting these foes can be described as "turning pro."
I believe in previous lives.
I believe in the Muse.
I believe that books and music exist before they are written and that they are propelled into material being by their own imperative to be born, via the offices of those willing servants of discipline, imagination and inspiration, whom we call artists. My conception of the artist's role is a combination of reverence for the unknowable nature of "where it all comes from" and a no-nonsense, blue-collar demystification of the process by which this mystery is approached. In other words, a paradox.
There's a recurring character in my books named Telamon, a mercenary of ancient days. Telamon doesn't say much. He rarely gets hurt or wounded. And he never seems to age. His view of the profession of arms is a lot like my conception of art and the artist:
"It is one thing to study war, and another to live the warrior's life."
I graduated from Duke University in 1965.
In January of 1966, when I was on the bus leaving Parris Island as a freshly-minted Marine, I looked back and thought there was at least one good thing about this departure. "No matter what happens to me for the rest of my life, no one can ever send me back to this freakin' place again."
Forty years later, to my surprise and gratification, I am far more closely bound to the young men of the Marine Corps and to all other dirt-eating, ground-pounding outfits than I could ever have imagined.
GATES OF FIRE is one reason. Dog-eared paperbacks of this tale of the ancient Spartans have circulated throughout platoons of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since the first days of the invasions. E-mails come in by hundreds. GATES OF FIRE is on the Commandant of the Marine Corps' Reading list. It is taught at West Point and Annapolis and at the Marine Corps Basic School at Quantico. TIDES OF WAR is on the curriculum of the Naval War College.
From 2nd Battalion/6th Marines, which calls itself "the Spartans," to ODA 316 of the Special Forces, whose forearms are tattooed with the lambda of Lakedaemon, today's young warriors find a bond to their ancient precursors in the historical narratives of these novels.
My struggles to earn a living as a writer (it took seventeen years to get the first paycheck) are detailed in my 2002 book, THE WAR OF ART.
I have worked as an advertising copywriter, schoolteacher, tractor-trailer driver, bartender, oilfield roustabout and attendant in a mental hospital. I have picked fruit in Washington state and written screenplays in Tinseltown.
With the publication of THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE in 1995, I became a writer of books once and for all.
My writing philosophy is, not surprisingly, a kind of warrior code � internal rather than external � in which the enemy is identified as those forms of self-sabotage that I have labeled "Resistance" with a capital R (in THE WAR OF ART) and the technique for combatting these foes can be described as "turning pro."
I believe in previous lives.
I believe in the Muse.
I believe that books and music exist before they are written and that they are propelled into material being by their own imperative to be born, via the offices of those willing servants of discipline, imagination and inspiration, whom we call artists. My conception of the artist's role is a combination of reverence for the unknowable nature of "where it all comes from" and a no-nonsense, blue-collar demystification of the process by which this mystery is approached. In other words, a paradox.
There's a recurring character in my books named Telamon, a mercenary of ancient days. Telamon doesn't say much. He rarely gets hurt or wounded. And he never seems to age. His view of the profession of arms is a lot like my conception of art and the artist:
"It is one thing to study war, and another to live the warrior's life."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 381 reviews
May 5, 2018
Steven Pressfield does it again with this haunting tale of Alexander the Great. I believe this book was released the same year as the Alexander movie starring Collin Farrell, and fans of the movie would probably enjoy this book as well. Both painted a vivid picture of Alexander's life through a brilliant narrative. Some of the battle sequences were written as if Pressfield was sitting astride his own mount on the periphery of the battlefield. Spectacular technical description was combined flawlessly with gruesome action.
The sarissa's song is a sad song
He pipes it soft and low.
I would ply a gentler trade, says he,
But war is all I know.
In case you are curious as to what a "sarissa" is, the link below shows one in all its glory and illustrates why Alexander's army was so terrible to face on the field. The Macedonian and his sarissa are on the left*
Pick this one up if you enjoy fiction involving history, war, military life, biography, philosophy ... bah just read it!
Five stars all the way.
Get your copy here:
The sarissa's song is a sad song
He pipes it soft and low.
I would ply a gentler trade, says he,
But war is all I know.
In case you are curious as to what a "sarissa" is, the link below shows one in all its glory and illustrates why Alexander's army was so terrible to face on the field. The Macedonian and his sarissa are on the left*
Pick this one up if you enjoy fiction involving history, war, military life, biography, philosophy ... bah just read it!
Five stars all the way.
Get your copy here:
August 8, 2020
A great book about an even greater warrior! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this account of Alexander the Great. Instantly, it was 327 BC, and I was standing alongside him in the most fierce battles—fast-paced, storytelling account of one of the most feared warriors, King and most certainly, legend. Historically correct from what I can remember. Wait, where's my chariot?
June 5, 2023
"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life."
I have lots of thoughts on this one, I will see if I can set myself the Herculean (or Alexandrian?) task of ordering them here.
First off, the framing device of a mature Alexander sitting by the campfire regaling young page boys with his manly triumphs couldn't help me thinking of the infamous "Canteen Boy" SNL sketch.
Is my beard too scratchy, Itanes?
Next, almost inevitably in books about Alexander III of Macedon you get plenty of juicy dialogue or mentions of his academic tutor, Aristotle. It's irresistible stuff for most authors, of course: one of history's greatest thinkers influencing a man who would go on to become on of history's greatest conquerors. The way this book is written, though, is as a soldier's memoir and Big A is focussed on passing on his experiences as a leader and a campaigner to his audience, not the inner workings of his soul or philosophical musings.
Looking for Aristotle Content?
There are scattered flashes of self-awareness but don't expect much else by way of humility from the world-conqueror. The Alexander who acts as narrator is arguably at the height of his powers, before the death of his beloved Hephaestion and still scheming to invade and subjugate every corner of the known world that has thus far escaped his passing. Expect a lot of discussion of his "Daimon", an inner demon more in keeping with the pagan Hellenic tradition that what you see in the Exorcist, as it possesses him to states of exultation and rage at seemingly minor triumphs, set-backs and slights.
Definitely a bro who gives himself his own "cool" nicknames
Ultimately it is a compelling narrative that neither lionizes nor demonizes the historical Alexander but attempts, as much as can be possible, to place him in his own context. I recommend.
I got you in my bleary sights, Romans!
A note on the Audiobook narrator: I can only wish I had a rich, sonorous baritone like John Lee but I feel his stentorian patrician cadence somehow didn't fit the first person perspective, particularly for scenes like when Alexander is delightedly recounting how some of the passes in the Hindu Kush were so steep they'd make a mule's asshole whistle from the effort of climbing them. But perhaps I'm just letting myself be too influenced by the memory of Colin Farrell's Irish bumpkin version of some years ago, which probably strayed too far to the other extreme.
It IS true that Alexander was said to be rather short and stocky...
I have lots of thoughts on this one, I will see if I can set myself the Herculean (or Alexandrian?) task of ordering them here.
First off, the framing device of a mature Alexander sitting by the campfire regaling young page boys with his manly triumphs couldn't help me thinking of the infamous "Canteen Boy" SNL sketch.
Is my beard too scratchy, Itanes?
Next, almost inevitably in books about Alexander III of Macedon you get plenty of juicy dialogue or mentions of his academic tutor, Aristotle. It's irresistible stuff for most authors, of course: one of history's greatest thinkers influencing a man who would go on to become on of history's greatest conquerors. The way this book is written, though, is as a soldier's memoir and Big A is focussed on passing on his experiences as a leader and a campaigner to his audience, not the inner workings of his soul or philosophical musings.
Looking for Aristotle Content?
There are scattered flashes of self-awareness but don't expect much else by way of humility from the world-conqueror. The Alexander who acts as narrator is arguably at the height of his powers, before the death of his beloved Hephaestion and still scheming to invade and subjugate every corner of the known world that has thus far escaped his passing. Expect a lot of discussion of his "Daimon", an inner demon more in keeping with the pagan Hellenic tradition that what you see in the Exorcist, as it possesses him to states of exultation and rage at seemingly minor triumphs, set-backs and slights.
Definitely a bro who gives himself his own "cool" nicknames
Ultimately it is a compelling narrative that neither lionizes nor demonizes the historical Alexander but attempts, as much as can be possible, to place him in his own context. I recommend.
I got you in my bleary sights, Romans!
A note on the Audiobook narrator: I can only wish I had a rich, sonorous baritone like John Lee but I feel his stentorian patrician cadence somehow didn't fit the first person perspective, particularly for scenes like when Alexander is delightedly recounting how some of the passes in the Hindu Kush were so steep they'd make a mule's asshole whistle from the effort of climbing them. But perhaps I'm just letting myself be too influenced by the memory of Colin Farrell's Irish bumpkin version of some years ago, which probably strayed too far to the other extreme.
It IS true that Alexander was said to be rather short and stocky...
August 24, 2024
My brother and I now have a booktube called The Brothers Gwynne. Check it out!
Another great Pressfield read - this time taking on the monumental task of portraying the supreme Alexander the Great.
Pressfield is a superb writer, one of the best at conveying war, leadership and comradeship. His portrayal of Alexander is incredible, painting this god-like figure of war and empire into a man. He is a genius tactician, someone who considers all possible outcomes before making his move and it is fascinating to read.
As we've come to expect from Pressfield, the battles are visceral and intense, the characters in the face of all odds is impossible to look away from and it's a very entertaining read.
Another great Pressfield read - this time taking on the monumental task of portraying the supreme Alexander the Great.
Pressfield is a superb writer, one of the best at conveying war, leadership and comradeship. His portrayal of Alexander is incredible, painting this god-like figure of war and empire into a man. He is a genius tactician, someone who considers all possible outcomes before making his move and it is fascinating to read.
As we've come to expect from Pressfield, the battles are visceral and intense, the characters in the face of all odds is impossible to look away from and it's a very entertaining read.
March 14, 2019
Ένα βιβλίο που πρέπει να διαβάσουν όλοι για να εκτιμήσουν το μεγαλείο όχι της Αυτοκρατορίας του Αλέξανδρου, αλλά το μεγαλείο του μυαλού, της ψυχής και του χαρακτήρα του. Ένας πραγματικός ηγέτης που ενέπνευσε εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες ανθρώπους να τον ακολουθήσουν στο άγνωστο!!!
November 14, 2017
The novel was fairly interesting, but far from Pressfield's best. I thought he reached his apogee with or possibly .
This story begins with Alexander's men wishing to turn back from India and go home; they feel they've fought and died far enough from home for long enough. Alexander's in his tent with Itanes, his young brother-in-law, and wants "someone to talk to ... who can listen without judgment and keep his mouth shut...it is my role to instruct you [in the art of war]." He then delivers a book-long series of monologues to Itanes, on that very subject. I had visions of a pompous professor in a gown like an English don delivering very long lectures to a class of one.
Alexander instructs Itanes on his [Alexander's] life, through various wars and battles Alexander has fought. Itanes's presence isn't even acknowledged until 80-some pages into the novel and after that, sporadically. Alexander gives his ideas on what makes a good soldier. The battle descriptions were well done, and Alexander's advice to various officers and his "Maxims on War" were very common-sense. I was reminded of 's writings on the latter.
I didn't like this portrayal of Alexander. He came across as arrogant, devious, excessively cruel at some points, almost wooden; my teeth were set on edge. He came across as a braggart. For the most part, he was unsympathetic until he and his men fought the Persians and he saw the suffering of his men.
I did like: *his description of how he met Hephaestion, who became his life-long close friend and soulmate.
*his description of Babylonian society.
*his even-handedness in his appraisal of Memnon, his Greek mercenary opponent in the Persian War.
*the Chronology at the end of the book
I did a 'double-take' when he mentioned striking "the bone" in battle to "count the cadence" of marching men. Immediately I thought of the symandron, used to this day. [To those who may not know what a symandron is, it is a special board, struck rhythmically with a mallet to call monks and nuns to prayer in Greek Orthodox monasteries and convents.]
All in all, this book was good enough, but not outstanding. I feel it's basically for people who want to read more Pressfield or for those who devour everything on Alexander the Great. This book has influenced me to dislike anything Alexander the Great! It left such a bad taste in my mouth!
This story begins with Alexander's men wishing to turn back from India and go home; they feel they've fought and died far enough from home for long enough. Alexander's in his tent with Itanes, his young brother-in-law, and wants "someone to talk to ... who can listen without judgment and keep his mouth shut...it is my role to instruct you [in the art of war]." He then delivers a book-long series of monologues to Itanes, on that very subject. I had visions of a pompous professor in a gown like an English don delivering very long lectures to a class of one.
Alexander instructs Itanes on his [Alexander's] life, through various wars and battles Alexander has fought. Itanes's presence isn't even acknowledged until 80-some pages into the novel and after that, sporadically. Alexander gives his ideas on what makes a good soldier. The battle descriptions were well done, and Alexander's advice to various officers and his "Maxims on War" were very common-sense. I was reminded of 's writings on the latter.
I didn't like this portrayal of Alexander. He came across as arrogant, devious, excessively cruel at some points, almost wooden; my teeth were set on edge. He came across as a braggart. For the most part, he was unsympathetic until he and his men fought the Persians and he saw the suffering of his men.
I did like: *his description of how he met Hephaestion, who became his life-long close friend and soulmate.
*his description of Babylonian society.
*his even-handedness in his appraisal of Memnon, his Greek mercenary opponent in the Persian War.
*the Chronology at the end of the book
I did a 'double-take' when he mentioned striking "the bone" in battle to "count the cadence" of marching men. Immediately I thought of the symandron, used to this day. [To those who may not know what a symandron is, it is a special board, struck rhythmically with a mallet to call monks and nuns to prayer in Greek Orthodox monasteries and convents.]
All in all, this book was good enough, but not outstanding. I feel it's basically for people who want to read more Pressfield or for those who devour everything on Alexander the Great. This book has influenced me to dislike anything Alexander the Great! It left such a bad taste in my mouth!
February 26, 2016
Virtues of War is what its title suggests, a treatise on the personality characteristics and decision making process of great warriors. It is, in the guise of narrative fiction, an instruction manual for leaders of troops, and is incredibly effective at what it does. I only wish I had read it before assuming my first command.
Pressfield is a singular writer, and this is on offer in his ability to make Alexander, a historical figure so remote as to be deified, a sympathetic character who resonates with the reader. You may think it impossible to identify with the ruler of the entire western world, and the greatest tactician in history, but Pressfield enables you to pull it off, so that Alexander's longing and loneliness becomes your own. It makes the book at the same time mournful and triumphant, and it is definitely worth your time.
Pressfield is a singular writer, and this is on offer in his ability to make Alexander, a historical figure so remote as to be deified, a sympathetic character who resonates with the reader. You may think it impossible to identify with the ruler of the entire western world, and the greatest tactician in history, but Pressfield enables you to pull it off, so that Alexander's longing and loneliness becomes your own. It makes the book at the same time mournful and triumphant, and it is definitely worth your time.
July 28, 2013
This my second Pressfield novel and is one of those books that inspired a lot of mixed feelings in me. I originally rated it four stars but I think I have to ultimately give it three. What it does, it does excellently, but what it lacks is totally nonexistent. While it does have a ton of fascinating information on Alexander's military and how he carved such a massive empire in a relatively short time without losing a single battle, it's almost impossible to engage on a personal level, which I really don't think is the author's fault and I'll do my best to explain why.
Alexander is brilliant and relentlessly shoved onward by what he calls his daimon, peeling apart and smashing the armies of the Greek, Persian, and Indian armies who stand against him, but he's also cold as ice. I felt like Pressfield tried to avoid this by including his interactions with his friend Hephaestion, and scenes of him getting all weepy over stuff. They don't work, and why should they? I don't think anyone has said that Alexander was a warm, compassionate humanist. He started a war with a pretty dubious casus belli and caused the deaths of so, so many people and the destabilization of a huge part of earth, as well as even managing to posthumously cause the wars of the Diadochi which caused even more death and chaos. Yet for some reason we kind of look at him in a romanticized, lover-warrior kind of view. The best reason for this that I can come up with is that he came from a Hellenistic culture and a lot of people, including myself, grew up with kind of this nice ideal of them which we don't have for similar cultures who raised gifted conquerors like the Huns, Mongols, etc.
At first I kind of balked at this calculating, alien portrayal of Alexander but then I realized that this is who these people were; they valued glory and power and catapulting themselves into legend through fire and death. This probably leaves very little room left for small-time stuff like compassion, rationality, selflessness, etc. All of this stuff still makes it a compelling portrait of what someone who achieved this kind of wide-scale subjugation might be like. I just had to resign myself to the fact that I wasn't gonna like Alexander.
That said...I still had a thrill in watching him take on such huge Persian armies and smash through them with his repeated uses of deception, feints, and insane cavalry charges straight at the enemy commander (often Darius himself) that basically cause every enemy on the field to shit their pants and stampede each other trying to get away. The battles are always, always fascinating as they present this huge picture of what Alexander is seeing in his head before, during, and after the fighting and Pressfield writes him as a very, very smart and talented soldier. I might be a little too hard on him, as he does obviously feel some remorse over Thebes and generally wasn't as hard on his conquered peoples and enemies as some, but overall a pretty icy and even disingenuous dude.
So another good one from Pressfield, just one that I had a relatively limited connection with--and that's probably how it should be. If you find yourself connecting too much with a person who killed thousands upon thousands of people and caused so much turmoil for an ultimately futile and kind of misguided cause, you're probably a little unbalanced--or the next Alexander the Great. Despite all that ranting I did about Alexander's character in this novel I still kept turning the pages and enjoying myself as I learned more about him once I let go of the desire to like him. Kind of makes me want to revisit another book with a character I thought turned into a totally murderous dick that ended up making me dislike the story; Conn Iggulden's Lords of the Bow, which is another credit to Pressfield. Two out of two so far, although certainly not as affecting as Gates of Fire, which all fans of historical fiction should probably give a shot if they haven't.
Alexander is brilliant and relentlessly shoved onward by what he calls his daimon, peeling apart and smashing the armies of the Greek, Persian, and Indian armies who stand against him, but he's also cold as ice. I felt like Pressfield tried to avoid this by including his interactions with his friend Hephaestion, and scenes of him getting all weepy over stuff. They don't work, and why should they? I don't think anyone has said that Alexander was a warm, compassionate humanist. He started a war with a pretty dubious casus belli and caused the deaths of so, so many people and the destabilization of a huge part of earth, as well as even managing to posthumously cause the wars of the Diadochi which caused even more death and chaos. Yet for some reason we kind of look at him in a romanticized, lover-warrior kind of view. The best reason for this that I can come up with is that he came from a Hellenistic culture and a lot of people, including myself, grew up with kind of this nice ideal of them which we don't have for similar cultures who raised gifted conquerors like the Huns, Mongols, etc.
At first I kind of balked at this calculating, alien portrayal of Alexander but then I realized that this is who these people were; they valued glory and power and catapulting themselves into legend through fire and death. This probably leaves very little room left for small-time stuff like compassion, rationality, selflessness, etc. All of this stuff still makes it a compelling portrait of what someone who achieved this kind of wide-scale subjugation might be like. I just had to resign myself to the fact that I wasn't gonna like Alexander.
That said...I still had a thrill in watching him take on such huge Persian armies and smash through them with his repeated uses of deception, feints, and insane cavalry charges straight at the enemy commander (often Darius himself) that basically cause every enemy on the field to shit their pants and stampede each other trying to get away. The battles are always, always fascinating as they present this huge picture of what Alexander is seeing in his head before, during, and after the fighting and Pressfield writes him as a very, very smart and talented soldier. I might be a little too hard on him, as he does obviously feel some remorse over Thebes and generally wasn't as hard on his conquered peoples and enemies as some, but overall a pretty icy and even disingenuous dude.
So another good one from Pressfield, just one that I had a relatively limited connection with--and that's probably how it should be. If you find yourself connecting too much with a person who killed thousands upon thousands of people and caused so much turmoil for an ultimately futile and kind of misguided cause, you're probably a little unbalanced--or the next Alexander the Great. Despite all that ranting I did about Alexander's character in this novel I still kept turning the pages and enjoying myself as I learned more about him once I let go of the desire to like him. Kind of makes me want to revisit another book with a character I thought turned into a totally murderous dick that ended up making me dislike the story; Conn Iggulden's Lords of the Bow, which is another credit to Pressfield. Two out of two so far, although certainly not as affecting as Gates of Fire, which all fans of historical fiction should probably give a shot if they haven't.
May 26, 2015
I actually liked this one more than I thought I would. I started reading it coming off the back of having read Mary Renault’s excellent Alexander trilogy not long before, which, for me, is the definitive Alexander fiction, and I went into this book feeling dubious as to whether it could compare. It couldn’t, but it wasn’t all that bad. I certainly enjoyed it more than I did Steven Pressfield’s Last of the Amazons, which was confusing, anachronistic, and had huge plotholes.
The voice of Alexander is the crucial factor in any novel tackling this historic person, presenting the author with the challenge of trying to capture his quixotic charisma, unusual intelligence, and powerful emotions. To my surprise, Pressfield actually does a reasonable job here� sort of. Let me explain. Other reviewers have praised the strength of descriptions of war in this book, and they’re dead on. The entire book reads like a series of anecdotes about battle, war, and the lessons Alexander has learned about being a commander. And it’s written well. The battle scenes are clearly described, if, at times, occasionally heavy on technical detail, and the anecdotes and snippets of wisdom are easily readable and page-turning. Alexander’s words of wisdom feel true to the historical figure’s intelligence and battle experience � so his “voice� did feel plausible here.
However, that’s all we get. The novel is very narrowly focused on just this one aspect, on the sequence of just one particular sort of event. I felt like Alexander the general was here� but Alexander the ruler, the dreamer, the man, was oddly absent. His charisma, personal dynamism, and human challenges felt like they were missing. I went through it at a good pace, enjoying the story, thinking it was quite well-written � but also missing those aspects that had been omitted. For me, the book didn’t capture the essence of Alexander, it just captured one strand in the essence of Alexander. Good, but it’s not going to supplant Mary Renault’s trilogy any time soon.
6 out of 10
December 24, 2021
**Should Read as 4.5 Stars!**
Read this book in 2007, and its a wonderful standalone book about Alexander the Great.
This tale is set between the years 356 until 323 BC and it will the rise, the conqueror of the Persian Empire before he was 25, and the end of his life at the age of 32.
Alexander was a man of many talents, from the brutal avenger of his father's murder, a student to Aristotle, a commander of genius and the conqueror of nations.
This tale wonderful tale about Alexander is brought to us in a most enthralling fashion by the author, and in which Alexander is pictured in a real lifelike and warlike individual.
Highly recommended, for this is a splendid standalone book about Alexander the Great, and that's why I like to call this book: "An Impressive Alexander The Great"!
Read this book in 2007, and its a wonderful standalone book about Alexander the Great.
This tale is set between the years 356 until 323 BC and it will the rise, the conqueror of the Persian Empire before he was 25, and the end of his life at the age of 32.
Alexander was a man of many talents, from the brutal avenger of his father's murder, a student to Aristotle, a commander of genius and the conqueror of nations.
This tale wonderful tale about Alexander is brought to us in a most enthralling fashion by the author, and in which Alexander is pictured in a real lifelike and warlike individual.
Highly recommended, for this is a splendid standalone book about Alexander the Great, and that's why I like to call this book: "An Impressive Alexander The Great"!
October 25, 2024
If you like to read about military strategy,Alexander’s army formations,weaponry and tactics used on his biggest battles started from Greece and finished in India,you have it .Alexander was a great conqueror and unbelievable strategic indeed.
February 25, 2009
An imagination of dazzling and epic scope.
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—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 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...
All-in-all, The Virtues of War is still a highly-recommended read—epic, artistic, and an honest-to-goodness page-turner...
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—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 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...
All-in-all, The Virtues of War is still a highly-recommended read—epic, artistic, and an honest-to-goodness page-turner...
May 22, 2011
"I am the living soul of the army. As blood flows from the lion's heart to its limbs, so courage flows from me to my countrymen. A million mend stand in arms against us. I will rout them by my will alone."
That line absolutely captures the feeling of Alexander in this novel. Even though this work was not a good as Gates of Fire it is still and outstanding work. Reading it alongside another authors rendition of Alexander, this work breathes fire. Pressfield has an absolute masculine energy that is enthralling. I can't get enough of his writing. I wish he would have taken on more with this book, and I do acknowledge that the Alexander that is portrayed may not be historically accurate in character, but man he is epic! He has some serious moments in this book that are so overpowering in scope. The battles are beautiful and frightful all at the same time. The descriptions are vivid and lively. The pacing is perfect. It is always a joy to read Pressfields work.
That line absolutely captures the feeling of Alexander in this novel. Even though this work was not a good as Gates of Fire it is still and outstanding work. Reading it alongside another authors rendition of Alexander, this work breathes fire. Pressfield has an absolute masculine energy that is enthralling. I can't get enough of his writing. I wish he would have taken on more with this book, and I do acknowledge that the Alexander that is portrayed may not be historically accurate in character, but man he is epic! He has some serious moments in this book that are so overpowering in scope. The battles are beautiful and frightful all at the same time. The descriptions are vivid and lively. The pacing is perfect. It is always a joy to read Pressfields work.
September 4, 2014
Wouldn't it be neat to have an interview with Alexander the Great in which he tells of his life as a soldier in a very introspective manner. Short of a time machine, this novel provides the next best thing thanks to Steven Pressfield's ability to crawl inside the mind of the world's greatest conqueror. The story as told in Alexander's voice covers the spectrum of language from noble rhetoric to earthy solder's vernacular as it narrates the stories of horror and triumph. The battles are described vividly and concisely. The flow of the narrative congers up within the reader the visceral excitement and fear of an outnumbered military force confident of their ability to prevail in spite of impossible odds.
Their subsequent problems related to trying to govern the conquered territories is also told in a most engaging way. It's interesting to note that some of the problems Alexander faced in the areas we today call Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan had vague similarities to current difficulties in those regions. The winner of the military battles often times is overwhelmed by the subsequent political and cultural conflicts.
How can there be any virtue in something as terrible as war? That was my first response to the book's title. There's enough gore and cruelty described in this book for a 21st Century reader to find it to be an anti-war tale. After the victory over Persia, it was difficult for Alexander to maintain the moral of his army. The virtue of war as seen from his perspective is that it gives men a sense of purpose and a goal to work toward. I think his thinking is summarized in the following quotation from the book in which Alexander reflects on the Battle of Hydaspes, his last major victory.
"Let me speak instead to the significance of the fight. What it meant to me and to the army. It was everything we needed---a contest of heroic scale against a foe who stood his ground and dueled with honor. At conflict's end, the field was ours, indeed, but, far more important, we had preserved our antagonist Porus's life and the lives of as many of his Ksatriyas as possible; we had been able to act toward him and them with integrity and restraint; and we had conquered not only a stubborn and manful foe but our own factious and recalcitrant selves."
A case can be made that Alexander the Great made the greatest impact on human history of any single person. It's difficult to imagine the history of Western Civilization without his exploits. The golden age of Greek may very well have been lost to history if Alexander hadn't made Greek culture the standard for Western Civilization. Without the foundation of Greek culture the Roman Empire may have never existed, at least not as we know it. And without the Roman Empire, what would have been the history of the western world? In that regard, Alexander was successful based on his own goals. The following quote from the book is of Alexander scolding his troops for plundering after the Battle of Issus.
"Do we march for plunder, brothers? Is gold our aim, Like merchants? By Zeus, I will cut my own throat if you tell me you believe that. It is enough to rout the foe, to prove ourselves the greater Brutes? Then build my pyre. I will kindle it myself before yielding to such want of imagination and such deficit of desire. Fame Imperishable and glory that will never die -- that is what we march for! To light that flame that death itself cannot quench. That I will achieve, and by the sword of Almighty Zeus, you will work it with me, every one of you! "
In Mr. Pressfield's parlance, Alexander felt within himself the existence of a "daimon." Alexander's voice returns to reflect on his inner daimon numerous times during the book's narrative. I have subsequently researched that term to try to see what the author, through Alexander's voice, was trying to say with it. It is true that "daimon" is the Greek derivative for the English word "demon." However, in the context of ancient Greek culture it was more likely considered to be an intermediary spirit between humans and the gods. Therefore, Alexander would have perceived it as an inner spirit that provided divine guidance telling him when he needed to take action on certain issues.
One thing I appreciated about the author is that he provided a "Note to the Reader" at the beginning of the book where he acknowledged several places in the book where he deviated from recorded history. He explains that he did it in the interest of the theme and the storytelling. I think Alexander would agree with the changes. At the very least it saves the reader the need to worry about the deviations. Steven Pressfield discusses the relationship between fact and fiction in the writing of historical novels in his author's forum at the following address:
In "message 2" at the above address he gives a specific example from the book, The Virtues of War.
Alexander was very much a tyrant when judged by modern standards. It's interesting to note that the Greeks of Athens and Sparta didn't consider Alexander to be Greek. To them he was Macedonian. When Alexander left Greece to conquer the east, he needed to leave half is forces at home to maintain control of the home country. It's interesting to note how often the tyrant ends up being an outsider to the home country. Some recent examples are; (1) Napoleon was Corsican, (2) Stalin was Georgian, and (3) Hitler was Austrian.
The following short review is from the 2007 Book Lover's Calendar:
HISTORICAL FICTION
Novelist Steven Pressfield’s beat is the classical world at war. He’s covered Sparta (Gates of Fire; Bantam, 1999) and Greece (Tides of War; Bantam, 2001), and now he tackles Macedonia, in a novel about Alexander the Great. A writer specializing in the grit and gore of ancient battlefields and the glory of conquest could have no better subject.
THE VIRTUES OF WAR: A NOVEL OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT, by Steven Pressfield (Bantam, 2005) Aspiring writers should not miss Pressfield’s thoughts on his craft, The War of Art (Warner Books, 2003). A pithy, wise, inspirational guide whose novel thesis is that art is war.
Their subsequent problems related to trying to govern the conquered territories is also told in a most engaging way. It's interesting to note that some of the problems Alexander faced in the areas we today call Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan had vague similarities to current difficulties in those regions. The winner of the military battles often times is overwhelmed by the subsequent political and cultural conflicts.
How can there be any virtue in something as terrible as war? That was my first response to the book's title. There's enough gore and cruelty described in this book for a 21st Century reader to find it to be an anti-war tale. After the victory over Persia, it was difficult for Alexander to maintain the moral of his army. The virtue of war as seen from his perspective is that it gives men a sense of purpose and a goal to work toward. I think his thinking is summarized in the following quotation from the book in which Alexander reflects on the Battle of Hydaspes, his last major victory.
"Let me speak instead to the significance of the fight. What it meant to me and to the army. It was everything we needed---a contest of heroic scale against a foe who stood his ground and dueled with honor. At conflict's end, the field was ours, indeed, but, far more important, we had preserved our antagonist Porus's life and the lives of as many of his Ksatriyas as possible; we had been able to act toward him and them with integrity and restraint; and we had conquered not only a stubborn and manful foe but our own factious and recalcitrant selves."
A case can be made that Alexander the Great made the greatest impact on human history of any single person. It's difficult to imagine the history of Western Civilization without his exploits. The golden age of Greek may very well have been lost to history if Alexander hadn't made Greek culture the standard for Western Civilization. Without the foundation of Greek culture the Roman Empire may have never existed, at least not as we know it. And without the Roman Empire, what would have been the history of the western world? In that regard, Alexander was successful based on his own goals. The following quote from the book is of Alexander scolding his troops for plundering after the Battle of Issus.
"Do we march for plunder, brothers? Is gold our aim, Like merchants? By Zeus, I will cut my own throat if you tell me you believe that. It is enough to rout the foe, to prove ourselves the greater Brutes? Then build my pyre. I will kindle it myself before yielding to such want of imagination and such deficit of desire. Fame Imperishable and glory that will never die -- that is what we march for! To light that flame that death itself cannot quench. That I will achieve, and by the sword of Almighty Zeus, you will work it with me, every one of you! "
In Mr. Pressfield's parlance, Alexander felt within himself the existence of a "daimon." Alexander's voice returns to reflect on his inner daimon numerous times during the book's narrative. I have subsequently researched that term to try to see what the author, through Alexander's voice, was trying to say with it. It is true that "daimon" is the Greek derivative for the English word "demon." However, in the context of ancient Greek culture it was more likely considered to be an intermediary spirit between humans and the gods. Therefore, Alexander would have perceived it as an inner spirit that provided divine guidance telling him when he needed to take action on certain issues.
One thing I appreciated about the author is that he provided a "Note to the Reader" at the beginning of the book where he acknowledged several places in the book where he deviated from recorded history. He explains that he did it in the interest of the theme and the storytelling. I think Alexander would agree with the changes. At the very least it saves the reader the need to worry about the deviations. Steven Pressfield discusses the relationship between fact and fiction in the writing of historical novels in his author's forum at the following address:
In "message 2" at the above address he gives a specific example from the book, The Virtues of War.
Alexander was very much a tyrant when judged by modern standards. It's interesting to note that the Greeks of Athens and Sparta didn't consider Alexander to be Greek. To them he was Macedonian. When Alexander left Greece to conquer the east, he needed to leave half is forces at home to maintain control of the home country. It's interesting to note how often the tyrant ends up being an outsider to the home country. Some recent examples are; (1) Napoleon was Corsican, (2) Stalin was Georgian, and (3) Hitler was Austrian.
The following short review is from the 2007 Book Lover's Calendar:
HISTORICAL FICTION
Novelist Steven Pressfield’s beat is the classical world at war. He’s covered Sparta (Gates of Fire; Bantam, 1999) and Greece (Tides of War; Bantam, 2001), and now he tackles Macedonia, in a novel about Alexander the Great. A writer specializing in the grit and gore of ancient battlefields and the glory of conquest could have no better subject.
THE VIRTUES OF WAR: A NOVEL OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT, by Steven Pressfield (Bantam, 2005) Aspiring writers should not miss Pressfield’s thoughts on his craft, The War of Art (Warner Books, 2003). A pithy, wise, inspirational guide whose novel thesis is that art is war.
May 30, 2008
Written in first person, this novel tells the story of Alexander's conquests through his own words. This book was a major turn-off in the beginning because it was nothing more than a statistical summary of all the components of his army during one campaign versus another. He would list in detail the types of weapons his men carried, how much these weapons weighed, how they were utilized and why they were so effective in certain situations. Also a lot of detail on battlefield strategy, which interested me not in the least. What I was looking for was a story about Alexander and how he came to power, not a checklist of his supplies. But in the end, I realized that my expectations were probably set too high. When you consider that Alexander spent his entire adult life making war, it's probably a pretty accurate depiction of who he really was. What else could be said about a guy who was always thinking ahead to his next battle? So perhaps the novel's weaknesses shouldn't be blamed on Pressfield but instead on Alexander, who maybe just wasn't as interesting as I would've thought. I would like to add, however, that there were parts to the story that I liked very much, especially toward the end when Alexander begins to express a faint sense of regret. If this had been a bigger part of the plot, I would have given it a much better recommendation.
July 24, 2007
This Alexander isn't very gay, or very megalomaniacal. He does kick ass, however, and take names, all the way to the Indus and back. Got yer Gaugamela right here, Darius.
January 13, 2014
Oda a la dynamis y el aedor.-
Género. Novela histórica.
Lo que nos cuenta. En tierras de la India, no muy lejos del río Hidaspes, con una intención a medio camino entre la catarsis contenida y cierto deseo de confesión, el macedonio Alejandro Magno cuenta a su pariente político, paje de tienda y soldado en formación Itanes sus recuerdos sobre el camino que le ha llevado al frente de su ejército hasta un lugar al oriente que nadie de sus regiones de origen había alcanzado nunca, reflexionando sobre las circunstancias que han marcado ese periplo desde la Antigua Grecia y sobre los eventos más destacados por los que ha pasado.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
Género. Novela histórica.
Lo que nos cuenta. En tierras de la India, no muy lejos del río Hidaspes, con una intención a medio camino entre la catarsis contenida y cierto deseo de confesión, el macedonio Alejandro Magno cuenta a su pariente político, paje de tienda y soldado en formación Itanes sus recuerdos sobre el camino que le ha llevado al frente de su ejército hasta un lugar al oriente que nadie de sus regiones de origen había alcanzado nunca, reflexionando sobre las circunstancias que han marcado ese periplo desde la Antigua Grecia y sobre los eventos más destacados por los que ha pasado.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
August 16, 2012
Solid 3 stars but not because of any fault of the author!! Just too technical for my tastes. His knowledge of Alexander's campaigns is unbelievable and any student of Alexander, I'm sure, will rave about this read. I appreciated, near the end, the description of what is needed to vanquish an army utilizing guerrila tactics and that logic would explain the U.S. inability to have success against such an eney in Vietnam!
May 27, 2019
As usual Pressfield writes brilliantly, though this isnt one of his best. It was much more exploratory of the philosophy and mindset of warriors than of the story of the men. Of course, middling Pressfield is still better than most.
June 11, 2013
I dropped the book after reading more than 300 pages of it, which is not something I do often. It was, however, in turns frustrating and boring, and - after Gaugamela - I couldn't even bring myself to care if and how Alexander defeats Porus. [Spoiler alert: Alexander died without ever losing a battle.] When I say the book was boring, however, I don't mean boring in the sense of ponderous, verbose or over-descriptive. On the contrary, "The Virtues of War" was awfully concise. To the point of being superficial. But more on that later.
Here are the reasons I think "The Virtues of War" fails both as a historical account and as a fictional novel.
1. Alexander the Great. When you hear that name, what do you think of? I won't even bother guessing. The name's so famous that you could associate it with practically anything, from actual historical events to kitchen aprons. But if you've read anything about the man, you will not be able to suspend your disbelief at his characterization in this book for long. Pressfield's Alexander is a humble, benevolent, unassuming guy whose ambitions don't go beyond good soldering and who - as he'll tell you on the very first pages of the book - ascribes his success entirely to the men he's leading. Yeah, that sounds exactly like the man who believed himself to be (the son of) a god, forced his lifelong companions to prostrate themselves before him, burned down Persepolis after getting drunk at a feast and may or may not have murdered his own father. Pressfield's Alexander doesn't seem to suffer from megalomania, paranoia or delusions of grandeur, is strictly heterosexual (bordering on asexual, actually... yes, we're still talking about Alexander the Great) and loves people (in a platonic way) more than Jesus Christ (allegedly) does.
I can't say I'm too impressed by this version of Alexander but, in the end, it wasn't what made me drop the book. Let's continue to...
2. The rest of the characters. Or lack thereof. Yes, there were some names thrown around. Some of the names even said some words. Some of the names even did some things that could be considered heroic. But, in the end, that's all the names were. Names. No characterization of anyone whatsoever, beyond psychical descriptions (even those were sparse) and accounts of martial prowess. I can't say the characters are two-dimensional because that implies that they have some dimensions and are not just names repeated often on a page. Pressfield is so economic in his characterization that the reader is left not caring what happens to any of the names at all.
3. Failing number three is, surprisingly for anyone familiar with Steven Pressfield, his description of war. I don't mean that it is poorly described. In fact, it's anything but. Military strategy and battle descriptions are the one aspect where this books shines. The battles are engaging and brilliantly written (though not on Conn Iggulden's level of vivid detail, clarity and suspension). Why do I consider this aspect to also be a failing of the book, then? Simple. I cannot suffer the glorification of war apparent in both this book and "Gates of Fire" (although, to be fair, GfF did try to show the horrors of war as well as its 'virtues'). War is not purifying. It is not virtuous. It is not the most noble of human inventions... I usually love nothing better than trying to acquire the mindsets of different people as I read the books they've written - it's refreshing to look at the world from perspectives other than my own. The mindset of the soldiers in this book is something I never wish to acquire. It's the mindset of the brainwashed patriot and the religious zealot.
4. Finally, the world and how lazily it's depicted. Everything is black or white. Steven Pressfield is very careful to make the distinction between West and East. You see, the West was so much more civilized than the East, even in ancient times. Let's completely forget that the entire social system of the West (always capital 'W' in Steven Pressfield's book) is based upon slavery. Let's forget that the Western world at that time has just gone through the Peloponnesian war that has torn Greece apart. Let's forget that the beautiful democracies and monarchies we see in the big cities anywhere - west, north, south or east - rely upon ninety percent of the population working in the fields and never leaving the farms until death or sickness or war do them apart. But forget all this. Think, instead, of how horrible the East (always capital 'E') is - with its empires and kings and oppressed farmers. Pressfield actually has Alexander talk to a Persian farmer (in a manner that is not entirely clear, seeing as Alexander doesn't speak Persian and the farmer certainly doesn't speak Greek) and feeling pity because of the tyranny and oppression the man has to endure. He then proceeds to be disgusted by the corrupted aristocracy of the East and the fact that no man in the East can advance his station. This, coming from a character that's supposed to have been brought up in a culture where slavery is accepted, his father is a famous conqueror and he himself is a prince who inherits his position by right of birth. I doubt that the author is intentionally trying to paint Alexander as horribly lacking in self-awareness, so I can't say I'm impressed with this portrayal of the Persian empire. Life was difficult for anyone not born in a city - in Greece, in Persia, in Egypt, everywhere
I will leave just two quotes below:
"This is the East. On the right hand, one beholds opulence beyond imagination; on the left, destitution that beggars description. The long-suffering of the peasantry approaches the holy. Their carriage and bearing possess a dignity unmatched even by kings of the West. But it is the dignity of a stone, weathering centuries, not of a man, descended of heaven."
"In the East there exists no objective standard of achievement, no impartial measure by which a man may establish or advance his station. He cannot 'get ahead.' He cannot 'succeed.' It is not like the egalitarianism of your army, Alexander, which provides an unbiased arena, within which a poor man may make his fortune and a rich man prove worthy of his fame. Here no man exists, save in subordination to another."
Two stars.
Here are the reasons I think "The Virtues of War" fails both as a historical account and as a fictional novel.
1. Alexander the Great. When you hear that name, what do you think of? I won't even bother guessing. The name's so famous that you could associate it with practically anything, from actual historical events to kitchen aprons. But if you've read anything about the man, you will not be able to suspend your disbelief at his characterization in this book for long. Pressfield's Alexander is a humble, benevolent, unassuming guy whose ambitions don't go beyond good soldering and who - as he'll tell you on the very first pages of the book - ascribes his success entirely to the men he's leading. Yeah, that sounds exactly like the man who believed himself to be (the son of) a god, forced his lifelong companions to prostrate themselves before him, burned down Persepolis after getting drunk at a feast and may or may not have murdered his own father. Pressfield's Alexander doesn't seem to suffer from megalomania, paranoia or delusions of grandeur, is strictly heterosexual (bordering on asexual, actually... yes, we're still talking about Alexander the Great) and loves people (in a platonic way) more than Jesus Christ (allegedly) does.
I can't say I'm too impressed by this version of Alexander but, in the end, it wasn't what made me drop the book. Let's continue to...
2. The rest of the characters. Or lack thereof. Yes, there were some names thrown around. Some of the names even said some words. Some of the names even did some things that could be considered heroic. But, in the end, that's all the names were. Names. No characterization of anyone whatsoever, beyond psychical descriptions (even those were sparse) and accounts of martial prowess. I can't say the characters are two-dimensional because that implies that they have some dimensions and are not just names repeated often on a page. Pressfield is so economic in his characterization that the reader is left not caring what happens to any of the names at all.
3. Failing number three is, surprisingly for anyone familiar with Steven Pressfield, his description of war. I don't mean that it is poorly described. In fact, it's anything but. Military strategy and battle descriptions are the one aspect where this books shines. The battles are engaging and brilliantly written (though not on Conn Iggulden's level of vivid detail, clarity and suspension). Why do I consider this aspect to also be a failing of the book, then? Simple. I cannot suffer the glorification of war apparent in both this book and "Gates of Fire" (although, to be fair, GfF did try to show the horrors of war as well as its 'virtues'). War is not purifying. It is not virtuous. It is not the most noble of human inventions... I usually love nothing better than trying to acquire the mindsets of different people as I read the books they've written - it's refreshing to look at the world from perspectives other than my own. The mindset of the soldiers in this book is something I never wish to acquire. It's the mindset of the brainwashed patriot and the religious zealot.
4. Finally, the world and how lazily it's depicted. Everything is black or white. Steven Pressfield is very careful to make the distinction between West and East. You see, the West was so much more civilized than the East, even in ancient times. Let's completely forget that the entire social system of the West (always capital 'W' in Steven Pressfield's book) is based upon slavery. Let's forget that the Western world at that time has just gone through the Peloponnesian war that has torn Greece apart. Let's forget that the beautiful democracies and monarchies we see in the big cities anywhere - west, north, south or east - rely upon ninety percent of the population working in the fields and never leaving the farms until death or sickness or war do them apart. But forget all this. Think, instead, of how horrible the East (always capital 'E') is - with its empires and kings and oppressed farmers. Pressfield actually has Alexander talk to a Persian farmer (in a manner that is not entirely clear, seeing as Alexander doesn't speak Persian and the farmer certainly doesn't speak Greek) and feeling pity because of the tyranny and oppression the man has to endure. He then proceeds to be disgusted by the corrupted aristocracy of the East and the fact that no man in the East can advance his station. This, coming from a character that's supposed to have been brought up in a culture where slavery is accepted, his father is a famous conqueror and he himself is a prince who inherits his position by right of birth. I doubt that the author is intentionally trying to paint Alexander as horribly lacking in self-awareness, so I can't say I'm impressed with this portrayal of the Persian empire. Life was difficult for anyone not born in a city - in Greece, in Persia, in Egypt, everywhere
I will leave just two quotes below:
"This is the East. On the right hand, one beholds opulence beyond imagination; on the left, destitution that beggars description. The long-suffering of the peasantry approaches the holy. Their carriage and bearing possess a dignity unmatched even by kings of the West. But it is the dignity of a stone, weathering centuries, not of a man, descended of heaven."
"In the East there exists no objective standard of achievement, no impartial measure by which a man may establish or advance his station. He cannot 'get ahead.' He cannot 'succeed.' It is not like the egalitarianism of your army, Alexander, which provides an unbiased arena, within which a poor man may make his fortune and a rich man prove worthy of his fame. Here no man exists, save in subordination to another."
Two stars.
March 4, 2020
Стивън Пресфийлд има таланта да описва военното дело в доста романтични краски и макар понякога много да му се получава, в случая нещо я е оплескал... или по-скоро не си е дал много зор.
В описанието на живота и битките на Александър Македонски виждаме само неговата (демек на Александър) гледна точка и на никой друг. Може би това е похват на автора, за да влезем в главата и начина на мислене на този очевидно нарцистичен и маниакален човек, за когото не е съществувало нищо друго, освен жаждата за завоевание и всички останали хора, даже най-"близките" му, не са нищо повече от пионки, които да бъдат местени, жертвани и после прежалени след час.
Предполагам точно затова самата книга е доста скучна - подробното описание на всяка битка на тактическо ниво, с всяка военна част, нейното разположение и движение е интересно в началото, но е толкова надребно разказано, че човек губи всякаква ориентация какво се случва.
А друго в книгата почти няма.
В описанието на живота и битките на Александър Македонски виждаме само неговата (демек на Александър) гледна точка и на никой друг. Може би това е похват на автора, за да влезем в главата и начина на мислене на този очевидно нарцистичен и маниакален човек, за когото не е съществувало нищо друго, освен жаждата за завоевание и всички останали хора, даже най-"близките" му, не са нищо повече от пионки, които да бъдат местени, жертвани и после прежалени след час.
Предполагам точно затова самата книга е доста скучна - подробното описание на всяка битка на тактическо ниво, с всяка военна част, нейното разположение и движение е интересно в началото, но е толкова надребно разказано, че човек губи всякаква ориентация какво се случва.
А друго в книгата почти няма.
December 19, 2018
Няма да мога докрай да се пренеса в тази книга. Макар да е повече военен трактат, отколкото каквото и да било друго - или, с по-прости думи, постоянно описание на бойни полета, армии, разположения и прочие - има нещо в самия образ на Александър, което малко ме отблъсква. Представен е като горд и велик военачалник, сам води разказа, украсява нещата доста талантливо... Но пък имаш и едно такова чувство, че е като някакъв надут пуяк, някак си... В главата му няма нищо друго, освен мисъл за войната. Може би и така трябва да бъде, но го прави допълнително суховат. А пък с каква любов си описва войниците, това вече е друга тема. Видимо е, че не съм в настроение за дълги военни походи, а такива съм преживявала, тъй да се каже, в немалко книги. Ако бях, книгата щеше да ми е безспорно приятна.
January 15, 2009
There are very few stories in the short history of civilization that can match that of Alexander the Great. The name alone inspires a kind of awe, and after reading Steven Pressfield's impressive historical-fiction account, I feel as though I have a better appreciation for just how amazing Alexander's life was. In his twenties he was breaking apart the Sacred Band of Thebes, assaulting the Persian empire, and conquering further and faster than anyone to the time had dreamed of doing. It's one thing to abstractly think, "Wow, Alexander controlled most of the known world at 32." It's quite another to be dropped into the battles, understand just how outnumbered he was most of the time, and the staggering genius it took to break the Persian empire in two.
Pressfield's style is one that I can understand how a few people might be turned off. Personally, I loved it. I enjoy military history, and so I have no problem with Alexander, in the first person, explaining exactly how the battle is going to go, and then having the actual battle scene follow. Pressfield's basic out is this: he's doing equal parts history and fiction, and not sacrificing either. Not to mention, being a tactician, this doubling up on battles makes a certain sense in the context of who Alexander is.
Aside from fantastic battle sequences, Pressfield found a clear voice for one of history's most extraordinary figures. Pressfield's Alexander is very aware of himself. On the one hand he's Alexander, a man who just loves being a soldier. On the other hand he's 'Alexander,' conquerer of the world, thought by many to be a deity, needing to plant his flag for his age and all the ages to follow by reaching the ends of the earth. He struggles to match his lofty dreams with the realities of a discontented army far from home in the sweltering heat of India. Through his own eyes we come to understand why people were able to love him so easily, and how dedicated he was to a singular ambition. The complexities, rewards and challenges of being the most powerful man to ever live bring life to what is usually the monotone of a history book.
On the fact front, it seems that Pressfield really did his homework. Sometimes when I read historical fiction and research the stuff later, discrepancies begin to appear. With what little I know of Alexander's conquest, Pressfield is as true to history as he is to telling a gripping story. Education and entertainment. What a concept.
Very, very solid novel. A real page-turner. Highly recommended, particularly to anyone interested in ancient history.
"The sarissa's song is a sad song.
He pipes it soft and low.
I would ply a gentler trade, says he,
But war is all I know."
Pressfield's style is one that I can understand how a few people might be turned off. Personally, I loved it. I enjoy military history, and so I have no problem with Alexander, in the first person, explaining exactly how the battle is going to go, and then having the actual battle scene follow. Pressfield's basic out is this: he's doing equal parts history and fiction, and not sacrificing either. Not to mention, being a tactician, this doubling up on battles makes a certain sense in the context of who Alexander is.
Aside from fantastic battle sequences, Pressfield found a clear voice for one of history's most extraordinary figures. Pressfield's Alexander is very aware of himself. On the one hand he's Alexander, a man who just loves being a soldier. On the other hand he's 'Alexander,' conquerer of the world, thought by many to be a deity, needing to plant his flag for his age and all the ages to follow by reaching the ends of the earth. He struggles to match his lofty dreams with the realities of a discontented army far from home in the sweltering heat of India. Through his own eyes we come to understand why people were able to love him so easily, and how dedicated he was to a singular ambition. The complexities, rewards and challenges of being the most powerful man to ever live bring life to what is usually the monotone of a history book.
On the fact front, it seems that Pressfield really did his homework. Sometimes when I read historical fiction and research the stuff later, discrepancies begin to appear. With what little I know of Alexander's conquest, Pressfield is as true to history as he is to telling a gripping story. Education and entertainment. What a concept.
Very, very solid novel. A real page-turner. Highly recommended, particularly to anyone interested in ancient history.
"The sarissa's song is a sad song.
He pipes it soft and low.
I would ply a gentler trade, says he,
But war is all I know."
July 17, 2021
I have long been a devotee of Alexander the Great (my son's middle name is Alexander), so looked forward to reading this novel. I was not disappointed! The story is told from Alexander's viewpoint as he is telling his story to his young brother-in-law. It is not a complete story of his life. He does start the story before the assassination of his father, Phillip. Most of the remainder of the story tells of his conquest of Persia. Pressfield, who has written several other historical novels based in the era of Ancient Greece, obviously does his research very well. The description of the battles is excellent. The book is quite accurate, the author knows his subject. Even better, the narration sounds like it would actually be Alexander speaking, and giving his version of the various battles and incidents of his life (which may differ from the historical record). I wish the book had been longer and included more of Alexander's other accomplishments, such as the siege of Tyre, the conquering of Egypt, etc. Alexander was fascinating and what he did in his short life (died at 32) is amazing, especially considering the time period it took place in. This novel takes you into that time period, and makes you feel like Alexander is talking to you, sitting by a campfire after a hard days march.
January 23, 2023
My first experience of Pressfield, the weaving of great history and splendid writing, is something that I cannot express well enough. Some are historians, with dry and textual content. VERY few are incredible writers. Steven Pressfield holds talent in both areas. This book is a clear example of his gifts.
“From that day, I vowed never to squander a moment's care over the good opinion of others. May they rot in hell. You have heard of my abstemiousness in matters of food and sex. Here is why: I punished myself. If I caught my thoughts straying to another's opinion of me, I sent myself to bed without supper. As for women, I likewise permitted myself none. I missed no few meals, and no small pleasure, before I brought this vice under control.�
A young man's journey into the world of the military under Alexander is the thread. To comprehend the level of devotion and isolation and brutality, day after day and year after year, is hard for me, even as a military veteran. Leadership is paramount in the military. This book demonstrates both good and poor leadership. This book, like The Art of War, could be brought into the business world, as well as the family structure.
I rarely give five stars. but this is very much worthy.
“From that day, I vowed never to squander a moment's care over the good opinion of others. May they rot in hell. You have heard of my abstemiousness in matters of food and sex. Here is why: I punished myself. If I caught my thoughts straying to another's opinion of me, I sent myself to bed without supper. As for women, I likewise permitted myself none. I missed no few meals, and no small pleasure, before I brought this vice under control.�
A young man's journey into the world of the military under Alexander is the thread. To comprehend the level of devotion and isolation and brutality, day after day and year after year, is hard for me, even as a military veteran. Leadership is paramount in the military. This book demonstrates both good and poor leadership. This book, like The Art of War, could be brought into the business world, as well as the family structure.
I rarely give five stars. but this is very much worthy.
August 6, 2012
It's a 3 star. For many that translates into a fail, and most of the time it does for me too, but this one does fit well with the ŷ description of what 3 star book means to a reader. 'Liked it'. Because I did. I liked it. It was not always thrilling or humanised enough for me. I never felt connected to Alexander (this is likely due to the first person narrative style of the book) and yet I did not dislike the book. It was simply one of those steady as she goes, beat the drum slowly kind of books. Which of course does not sit well enough for me in a book about one of the greatest battle leaders of history. It should not be so steady, it should be passionately told and thrilling to behold. Like, dare I say it, Gates of Fire was. What Pressfield did for the Spartans last stand, he did not do for Alexander's foreign battlefields.
Virtues of War was more of a push than a kick. I enjoyed it, liked it, but it was a little disappointing overall.
Virtues of War was more of a push than a kick. I enjoyed it, liked it, but it was a little disappointing overall.
March 14, 2021
“I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life.� This begins Pressfield’s exceptionally fascinating and readable story of Alexander the Great. This dramatic historical fiction account takes through Alexander’s early years of training and learning under his father’s—Philip of Macedon—rule through his final battles. After his father’s brutal assassination, no one thought Alexander could fill his father’s enormous shoes but he does that and much more. Feared by his enemies yet equally loved by his generals and comrades, readers witness the ethos Alexander lives his life—the Virtues of War!
January 28, 2024
this was a beautiful and well written book and i think that i really would have loved it if i had been able to read it all at once. however, there were so many names and places and historical details that it became overwhelming and made it difficult for me to read a large chunk of the book in one sitting. granted, the exploits of alexander ranged over many countries and many years, conquering and encountering a great number of peoples and places, so it makes sense. it just became difficult for me to continue reading, but if i had been able to remember all the little details, it would have made this book that much more emotional and impactful for me.
pressfield has a lovely prose style and is great at character building. his characters are very real, each with its own developed personality, ambitions, emotions, etc. my one complaint is the lack of female characters, though i suppose it makes historical sense. i also really did love reading about alexander, who was viewed as a god by so many, but we heard a point of view from someone close to him that understood that he really was just a young man. i was so intrigued reading about how his inner thoughts were different from everyone else around him, making him into a tactical and respected leader. i did really enjoy this book, even if the names could get clouded at times.
though pressfield’s gates of fire will always be my favorite, he produced a beautiful and moving read with the virtues of war.
pressfield has a lovely prose style and is great at character building. his characters are very real, each with its own developed personality, ambitions, emotions, etc. my one complaint is the lack of female characters, though i suppose it makes historical sense. i also really did love reading about alexander, who was viewed as a god by so many, but we heard a point of view from someone close to him that understood that he really was just a young man. i was so intrigued reading about how his inner thoughts were different from everyone else around him, making him into a tactical and respected leader. i did really enjoy this book, even if the names could get clouded at times.
though pressfield’s gates of fire will always be my favorite, he produced a beautiful and moving read with the virtues of war.
February 15, 2019
A fictional account of Alexander's life in 1st person. It has some interesting points, but it reads more like Pressfield's philosophy than Alexander's. It does have some amazing descriptions of battles, including the Granicus, Issus and especially Gaugamela. It would probably help if you know at least the basics of Alexander's life because the names abound, and can easily become confusing.
Strangely as I continued to read, the less I liked Alexander. His struggle to control his 'daimon', which is not an easy word to translate, brings out the bad and the good of his character. Pressfield leaves it to Hephaestion to question some of Alexander's actions, which Alexander professes to love about him, but you also have to wonder if that's mainly for 'publication' as they say.
I did enjoy the book, but frankly I think the real Alexander wouldn't have felt the need to express himself so much. He was what he was, take it or leave it.
Strangely as I continued to read, the less I liked Alexander. His struggle to control his 'daimon', which is not an easy word to translate, brings out the bad and the good of his character. Pressfield leaves it to Hephaestion to question some of Alexander's actions, which Alexander professes to love about him, but you also have to wonder if that's mainly for 'publication' as they say.
I did enjoy the book, but frankly I think the real Alexander wouldn't have felt the need to express himself so much. He was what he was, take it or leave it.
May 4, 2020
Argh such a disappointment.
The life of Alexander the Great, told in a "Alexander telling his story to a young chum" style, this should've been really great!
The story was still good, nice learning the basic facts, but the writing, man, sometimes there were just lists of "John went here with 10 men, Peter went there with 25 men on horses" which went on for half a page or more. As though Steven was trying to prove he did the research.
Should've been great.
The life of Alexander the Great, told in a "Alexander telling his story to a young chum" style, this should've been really great!
The story was still good, nice learning the basic facts, but the writing, man, sometimes there were just lists of "John went here with 10 men, Peter went there with 25 men on horses" which went on for half a page or more. As though Steven was trying to prove he did the research.
Should've been great.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 381 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.