What do you think?
Rate this book
Alexander the Great
In the first authoritative biography of Alexander the Great written for a general audience in a generation, classicist and historian Philip Freeman tells the remarkable life of the great conqueror. The celebrated Macedonian king has been one of the most enduring figures in history. He was a general of such skill and renown that for two thousand years other great leaders studied his strategy and tactics, from Hannibal to Napoleon, with countless more in between. He flashed across the sky of history like a comet, glowing brightly and burning out quickly: crowned at age nineteen, dead by thirty-two. He established the greatest empire of the ancient world; Greek coins and statues are found as far east as Afghanistan. Our interest in him has never faded.
Alexander was born into the royal family of Macedonia, the kingdom that would soon rule over Greece. Tutored as a boy by Aristotle, Alexander had an inquisitive mind that would serve him well when he faced formidable obstacles during his military campaigns. Shortly after taking command of the army, he launched an invasion of the Persian empire, and continued his conquests as far south as the deserts of Egypt and as far east as the mountains of present-day Pakistan and the plains of India. Alexander spent nearly all his adult life away from his homeland, and he and his men helped spread the Greek language throughout western Asia, where it would become the lingua franca of the ancient world. Within a short time after Alexander’s death in Baghdad, his empire began to fracture. Best known among his successors are the Ptolemies of Egypt, whose empire lasted until Cleopatra.
In his lively and authoritative biography of Alexander, classical scholar and historian Philip Freeman describes Alexander’s astonishing achievements and provides insight into the mercurial character of the great conqueror. Alexander could be petty and magnanimous, cruel and merciful, impulsive and farsighted. Above all, he was ferociously, intensely competitive and could not tolerate losing—which he rarely did. As Freeman explains, without Alexander, the influence of Greece on the ancient world would surely not have been as great as it was, even if his motivation was not to spread Greek culture for beneficial purposes but instead to unify his empire. Only a handful of people have influenced history as Alexander did, which is why he continues to fascinate us.
391 pages, Hardcover
First published December 23, 2010
897 people are currently reading
10036 people want to read
About the author
Philip Freeman
76 books510 followersI teach Classics and Celtic studies at Luther College in the beautiful little town of Decorah, Iowa. I did my doctoral work at Harvard and taught at Boston University and Washington University in St. Louis before coming to Luther to help run the Classics department. I love teaching and see my writing as an extension of my work in the classroom. I hope you enjoy the books as much as I enjoyed writing them.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 520 reviews
May 2, 2022
Leído hace ya unos cuantos años. De lo mejorcito que he leído sobre esta gran figura histórica. A ver si recupero el libro para poder reseñar.
He dicho.
He dicho.
April 15, 2014
I have been meaning to read Philip Freeman’s book on Alexander the Great since early 2011 when I purchased a copy after reading his book on Julius Caesar. His account of Caesar was a very enjoyable read which led me to purchase Alexander the Great. Although it has taken me three years to open this book up and turn the first page I can say that the delay was not due to the quality of the book and the author’s writing, just me flicking from book to book as most of us do.
This story of Alexander is written for a general audience and may not be as in-depth as others I have read on the subject, my two favourites being; Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox and Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. by Peter Green. However it’s an excellent first book to read on the subject, easy to read, well written and full of great and interesting stories of Alexander’s life and times. Like this account of Alexander's training as a youth with one of his tutor's, a crusty old tyrant named Leonidas:
"He was so parsimonious that one day when Alexander took a whole handful of incense to throw on the alter fire, Leonidas rebuked the boy, saying that once he had conquered the spice markets of Asia he could waste good incense but not before. (Years later, when Alexander had taken the entire Near East, he sent his aged tutor an enormous shipment of frankincense and myrrh with a note saying he could now stop being so miserly to the gods.) Yet alexander loved his cantankerous teacher and thought of him as a second father."
The author then takes us on a journey with Alexander and his army as he consolidates his hold on Macedonia and Greece before heading east to confront the Persian Empire of Darius. On his return trip from Athens this incident occurred:
"On the way home, Alexander made a detour through the mountains of central Greece to the sacred site of Delphi beneath Mount Parnassus. Like so many kings before him, he wished to consult the oracle regarding his upcoming military campaign. Unfortunately, he was informed that the priestess who spoke for Apollo was in seclusion and as a matter of religious principle was not available that day, even for the ruler of all Greece. Alexander promptly marched into her lodgings and began dragging her forcibly into the shrine. This grossly sacrilegious act had its intended effect, however, when the priestess cried out: 'You are invincible!' This was all Alexander wanted to hear. He donated a modest amount for the upkeep of the temple, then gathered his troops and marched north to Macedonia."
The author has utilised the ancient sources and in cases where there is some doubt about the veracity of the story the author takes the time to provide details of the various accounts and why he prefers one account over another. Alexander is also presented with a human face and a man with a sense of humour, as during this incident:
"The famous painter Apelles was resident in Ephesus when Alexander arrived and the king could not resist commissioning a portrait of himself astride Bucephalas. The king had seen Apelle's work before, including the painting of his own father, Philip, and had great expectations for a matchless work. However, when the painting was finished, Alexander was not impressed. Apelles then brought it over to show Bucephalas, who neighed in apparent approval. The bold artist then told Alexander that his horse had better taste than he did."
I really enjoyed this story, his almost constant warfare to establish his hold on the Persian Empire and the lands further to the east led him and his men on a quest into the unknown. I was amazed at how Alexander could continue to motivate his Macedonians after so many years away from their homeland; they kept on marching and fighting, almost to the ends of the known earth. Alexander was truly a most remarkable man and commander. The beauty of this book is that he is presented and judged as man of his times, not of ours, something that some authors feel reluctant to do.
Having only just recently finished reading The Histories by Herodotus I was tickled pink to find out that Alexander carried a copy of that book with him on his travels and conquests and used it as a sort of ancient travel guide.
In closing, here is an account from the end of the book that speaks volumes in itself: “Julius Caesar studied Homer and Herodotus as carefully as any Greek scholar and wept when he saw a statue of Alexander on display at a temple in Spain on the shores of the Atlantic. The Roman general explained his tears by saying he had accomplished so little by the age at which Alexander had died.”
I would heartily recommend this book to anyone who wanted to read just one good account of Alexander the Great. It's an easy to read book providing more than enough detail on Alexander and his times. I am sure that anyone who enjoys a good history book will enjoy this story.
This story of Alexander is written for a general audience and may not be as in-depth as others I have read on the subject, my two favourites being; Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox and Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. by Peter Green. However it’s an excellent first book to read on the subject, easy to read, well written and full of great and interesting stories of Alexander’s life and times. Like this account of Alexander's training as a youth with one of his tutor's, a crusty old tyrant named Leonidas:
"He was so parsimonious that one day when Alexander took a whole handful of incense to throw on the alter fire, Leonidas rebuked the boy, saying that once he had conquered the spice markets of Asia he could waste good incense but not before. (Years later, when Alexander had taken the entire Near East, he sent his aged tutor an enormous shipment of frankincense and myrrh with a note saying he could now stop being so miserly to the gods.) Yet alexander loved his cantankerous teacher and thought of him as a second father."
The author then takes us on a journey with Alexander and his army as he consolidates his hold on Macedonia and Greece before heading east to confront the Persian Empire of Darius. On his return trip from Athens this incident occurred:
"On the way home, Alexander made a detour through the mountains of central Greece to the sacred site of Delphi beneath Mount Parnassus. Like so many kings before him, he wished to consult the oracle regarding his upcoming military campaign. Unfortunately, he was informed that the priestess who spoke for Apollo was in seclusion and as a matter of religious principle was not available that day, even for the ruler of all Greece. Alexander promptly marched into her lodgings and began dragging her forcibly into the shrine. This grossly sacrilegious act had its intended effect, however, when the priestess cried out: 'You are invincible!' This was all Alexander wanted to hear. He donated a modest amount for the upkeep of the temple, then gathered his troops and marched north to Macedonia."
The author has utilised the ancient sources and in cases where there is some doubt about the veracity of the story the author takes the time to provide details of the various accounts and why he prefers one account over another. Alexander is also presented with a human face and a man with a sense of humour, as during this incident:
"The famous painter Apelles was resident in Ephesus when Alexander arrived and the king could not resist commissioning a portrait of himself astride Bucephalas. The king had seen Apelle's work before, including the painting of his own father, Philip, and had great expectations for a matchless work. However, when the painting was finished, Alexander was not impressed. Apelles then brought it over to show Bucephalas, who neighed in apparent approval. The bold artist then told Alexander that his horse had better taste than he did."
I really enjoyed this story, his almost constant warfare to establish his hold on the Persian Empire and the lands further to the east led him and his men on a quest into the unknown. I was amazed at how Alexander could continue to motivate his Macedonians after so many years away from their homeland; they kept on marching and fighting, almost to the ends of the known earth. Alexander was truly a most remarkable man and commander. The beauty of this book is that he is presented and judged as man of his times, not of ours, something that some authors feel reluctant to do.
Having only just recently finished reading The Histories by Herodotus I was tickled pink to find out that Alexander carried a copy of that book with him on his travels and conquests and used it as a sort of ancient travel guide.
In closing, here is an account from the end of the book that speaks volumes in itself: “Julius Caesar studied Homer and Herodotus as carefully as any Greek scholar and wept when he saw a statue of Alexander on display at a temple in Spain on the shores of the Atlantic. The Roman general explained his tears by saying he had accomplished so little by the age at which Alexander had died.”
I would heartily recommend this book to anyone who wanted to read just one good account of Alexander the Great. It's an easy to read book providing more than enough detail on Alexander and his times. I am sure that anyone who enjoys a good history book will enjoy this story.
February 28, 2015
This is a nice biography, historically plausible and reasonably accurate, of one of the most ambitious men and brilliant military commanders in human history, Alexander the Great.
I personally think that there are very few historical characters who are more deserving of the appellation "The Great" (and I don't honestly care if this is not politically correct in the current environment, where it appears fashionable to condemn or treat with disdain the feats of whoever, with modern eyes, is considered a "tyrant" or an "imperialist").
Anyway, let me summarize the main positive (and not-so-positive) features of this book:
On the positive side:
- it is a very compelling read, and very well written; overall, a very pleasant reading experience
- it depicts a reasonably balanced view of Alexander: he is represented as a man of his times - ruthless, superstitious, vindictive, manipulator of men; but also very daring and ambitious, courageous, visionary, passionate, and with an unsurpassed level of personal charisma and sheer force of will, capable of pushing his men beyond human limits of endurance and even common sense
- it is historically quite accurate. Primary source of this period are notoriously scarce and contradictory, and the author generally refrained from indulging into the least plausible but most "popular" versions of some events
- the sense of adventure and the grandiosity of Alexander's dream, and his overwhelmingly forceful and magnetic personality are well represented
- the greatness of the Persian civilization is correctly emphasized; it was an amazing multinational civilization with a sophisticated, yet-unsurpassed level of cultural development, which did not fail to impress Alexander himself
On the not-so-positive side, there are a few issues that prevented me from giving this book a full 5-star ratings:
- I think that the analysis of the sources is somewhat lacking. This is absolutely critical in any attempt to write and analyze Alexander's life and period, for which primary sources are notoriously such an irky problem
- I also think that there is too much focus on the military aspects as opposed to the political, social and cultural elements. Moreover, the pre-existing overall situation in the Levant is not analyzed at any decent level of detail, which prevents a full appreciation of the reasons behind the subsequent events of the Alexandrian and Hellenistic period
- The exceptional character of the farsighted policy of multiculturalism pursued by Alexander is just not emphasized enough. Not many realize how outside the boundaries of accepted cultural norm of ancient Greece this policy actually was: culturally, ancient Greece was deeply ethnocentric (even racist, somebody might say). Notoriously, Aristotle claimed (in his discussion of slavery) that Greeks are free by nature, while barbarians (which by the way was a term coined by the Greeks) are slaves by nature, in that it is in their nature to be more willing to submit to despotic government. And Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle.
- In a couple of instances, the choice of sources is questionable (to say the least): Romans sending envoys to “pay homage” to Alexander ? Are you kidding ? This is completely out of character and against Roman political practice – Romans just did not pay homage, and they only very rarely paid tribute from a position of military or political inferiority (this happened possibly only during the Gaulic siege of Rome in 390 B.C. - and even this is debatable; and it happened during the decline and end of the Western Roman Empire – for example the tributes paid to Attila)
Overall, notwithstanding these relatively minor issues, it is a very nice, enjoyable read well deserving a full 4-star rating.
I personally think that there are very few historical characters who are more deserving of the appellation "The Great" (and I don't honestly care if this is not politically correct in the current environment, where it appears fashionable to condemn or treat with disdain the feats of whoever, with modern eyes, is considered a "tyrant" or an "imperialist").
Anyway, let me summarize the main positive (and not-so-positive) features of this book:
On the positive side:
- it is a very compelling read, and very well written; overall, a very pleasant reading experience
- it depicts a reasonably balanced view of Alexander: he is represented as a man of his times - ruthless, superstitious, vindictive, manipulator of men; but also very daring and ambitious, courageous, visionary, passionate, and with an unsurpassed level of personal charisma and sheer force of will, capable of pushing his men beyond human limits of endurance and even common sense
- it is historically quite accurate. Primary source of this period are notoriously scarce and contradictory, and the author generally refrained from indulging into the least plausible but most "popular" versions of some events
- the sense of adventure and the grandiosity of Alexander's dream, and his overwhelmingly forceful and magnetic personality are well represented
- the greatness of the Persian civilization is correctly emphasized; it was an amazing multinational civilization with a sophisticated, yet-unsurpassed level of cultural development, which did not fail to impress Alexander himself
On the not-so-positive side, there are a few issues that prevented me from giving this book a full 5-star ratings:
- I think that the analysis of the sources is somewhat lacking. This is absolutely critical in any attempt to write and analyze Alexander's life and period, for which primary sources are notoriously such an irky problem
- I also think that there is too much focus on the military aspects as opposed to the political, social and cultural elements. Moreover, the pre-existing overall situation in the Levant is not analyzed at any decent level of detail, which prevents a full appreciation of the reasons behind the subsequent events of the Alexandrian and Hellenistic period
- The exceptional character of the farsighted policy of multiculturalism pursued by Alexander is just not emphasized enough. Not many realize how outside the boundaries of accepted cultural norm of ancient Greece this policy actually was: culturally, ancient Greece was deeply ethnocentric (even racist, somebody might say). Notoriously, Aristotle claimed (in his discussion of slavery) that Greeks are free by nature, while barbarians (which by the way was a term coined by the Greeks) are slaves by nature, in that it is in their nature to be more willing to submit to despotic government. And Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle.
- In a couple of instances, the choice of sources is questionable (to say the least): Romans sending envoys to “pay homage” to Alexander ? Are you kidding ? This is completely out of character and against Roman political practice – Romans just did not pay homage, and they only very rarely paid tribute from a position of military or political inferiority (this happened possibly only during the Gaulic siege of Rome in 390 B.C. - and even this is debatable; and it happened during the decline and end of the Western Roman Empire – for example the tributes paid to Attila)
Overall, notwithstanding these relatively minor issues, it is a very nice, enjoyable read well deserving a full 4-star rating.
December 23, 2025
Sorry- this is a long one!
Philip Freeman is, first and foremost, a gifted teacher, and that sensibility shines on every page of Alexander the Great. This is not a dense, footnote-heavy academic tome, nor does it pretend to be. Instead, Freeman offers a clear, engaging historical narrative written with students—and curious general readers—in mind. For me, that is exactly its strength. I’m a 5 star fan of most of his works.
The book traces the extraordinary life of Alexander of Macedon, the brilliant and often bewildering king and general who, over the course of a relentless multi-decade campaign, forged the largest empire the ancient world had ever seen. Freeman walks us from Alexander’s formative years through his astonishing military conquests, introducing the key figures, cultures, and turning points that shaped his rise—all without overwhelming the reader or giving away too much narrative suspense.
This books works well for me because freeman has a rare ability to balance clarity with wonder. His prose is accessible but never dumbed down; informative yet frequently lyrical. At times, it feels as if he’s flinging a little bit of pixie dust across the ancient world—suddenly battles feel immediate, landscapes come alive, and historical figures step off the page as real, complicated human beings.
As an educator and lifelong reader of ancient history, I deeply appreciate how Freeman structures his storytelling. He explains why events matter, not just what happened. You can feel his classroom experience in the way he anticipates questions, provides context, and keeps the narrative moving. This is a book that teaches without lecturing.
Freeman is one of my favorite writers of ancient history, and this book reinforces why. I’ve read more scholarly biographies of Alexander, but this one reminded me why his story continues to matter. Freeman captures both the grandeur of Alexander’s achievements and the unsettling questions they raise about ambition, power, and legacy.
Viewing Alexander through a 21st-century lens, it’s impossible not to see him as a war criminal. The massacres, the destruction of cities, and the ruthless suppression of resistance are deeply unsettling to some modern readers—and rightly so. Freeman does not shy away from these realities. Yet he also reminds us that Alexander was very much a man of his time. In the parlance of the ancient world, conquest was not an aberration but an expectation of kingship, and violence was the currency of legitimacy. Alexander was doing his due diligence as a Macedonian ruler and general, operating within a moral framework radically different from our own. Holding both truths at once—the horror and the historical context—is part of what makes this book so intellectually rewarding.
I found myself fully immersed—sometimes pausing just to marvel at how effectively Freeman pulls the reader into the ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. This is the kind of history book I would eagerly recommend to students, fellow teachers, and anyone looking to fall in love (or fall back in love) with classical history.
Alexander the Great is an outstanding introduction to one of history’s most fascinating figures, written by a master storyteller who never forgets that history is ultimately about people. Engaging, readable, and occasionally magical—this is Philip Freeman at his best.
Freeman relies heavily on Arrian of Nicomedia for much of his ancient sourcing. Can you imagine having Arrian in your classroom my teacher friends? The kid writes Epictetus’ works and Alexander the Great! He gets the gold star!!!
Highly recommended. 📚⚔️ digital/audio please checkout Freeman’s excellent Julius Caesar biography too. Another excellent work of history.
Philip Freeman is, first and foremost, a gifted teacher, and that sensibility shines on every page of Alexander the Great. This is not a dense, footnote-heavy academic tome, nor does it pretend to be. Instead, Freeman offers a clear, engaging historical narrative written with students—and curious general readers—in mind. For me, that is exactly its strength. I’m a 5 star fan of most of his works.
The book traces the extraordinary life of Alexander of Macedon, the brilliant and often bewildering king and general who, over the course of a relentless multi-decade campaign, forged the largest empire the ancient world had ever seen. Freeman walks us from Alexander’s formative years through his astonishing military conquests, introducing the key figures, cultures, and turning points that shaped his rise—all without overwhelming the reader or giving away too much narrative suspense.
This books works well for me because freeman has a rare ability to balance clarity with wonder. His prose is accessible but never dumbed down; informative yet frequently lyrical. At times, it feels as if he’s flinging a little bit of pixie dust across the ancient world—suddenly battles feel immediate, landscapes come alive, and historical figures step off the page as real, complicated human beings.
As an educator and lifelong reader of ancient history, I deeply appreciate how Freeman structures his storytelling. He explains why events matter, not just what happened. You can feel his classroom experience in the way he anticipates questions, provides context, and keeps the narrative moving. This is a book that teaches without lecturing.
Freeman is one of my favorite writers of ancient history, and this book reinforces why. I’ve read more scholarly biographies of Alexander, but this one reminded me why his story continues to matter. Freeman captures both the grandeur of Alexander’s achievements and the unsettling questions they raise about ambition, power, and legacy.
Viewing Alexander through a 21st-century lens, it’s impossible not to see him as a war criminal. The massacres, the destruction of cities, and the ruthless suppression of resistance are deeply unsettling to some modern readers—and rightly so. Freeman does not shy away from these realities. Yet he also reminds us that Alexander was very much a man of his time. In the parlance of the ancient world, conquest was not an aberration but an expectation of kingship, and violence was the currency of legitimacy. Alexander was doing his due diligence as a Macedonian ruler and general, operating within a moral framework radically different from our own. Holding both truths at once—the horror and the historical context—is part of what makes this book so intellectually rewarding.
I found myself fully immersed—sometimes pausing just to marvel at how effectively Freeman pulls the reader into the ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. This is the kind of history book I would eagerly recommend to students, fellow teachers, and anyone looking to fall in love (or fall back in love) with classical history.
Alexander the Great is an outstanding introduction to one of history’s most fascinating figures, written by a master storyteller who never forgets that history is ultimately about people. Engaging, readable, and occasionally magical—this is Philip Freeman at his best.
Freeman relies heavily on Arrian of Nicomedia for much of his ancient sourcing. Can you imagine having Arrian in your classroom my teacher friends? The kid writes Epictetus’ works and Alexander the Great! He gets the gold star!!!
Highly recommended. 📚⚔️ digital/audio please checkout Freeman’s excellent Julius Caesar biography too. Another excellent work of history.
April 14, 2024
My two favorite historical figures have always been Joan d'Arc and Alexander the Great. What captures my imagination is how much each accomplished at such a young age.
In the 4th century BC, Alexander was born to Philip of Macedon. Young Alexander somehow became obsessed with outdoing his father - a tall order, since Philip was a great conqueror in his own right. Alexander had the incredible fortune to be tutored by *The Aristotle* until a life-changing event at age 16. Thracian raiders attacked while Philip was on a military campaign, and as regent in his father's absence, it was up to Alexander to marshal his soldiers and defend the country. The rest, as they say, is history.
AtG convinced an army of seasoned Macedonian soldiers to follow him across 3 continents, reaching lands previously unknown in the Hellenistic world. In the space of 13 years, he explored his world and conquered Persia and much of India. He died from a sudden illness at age 32, when he was either poisoned or succumbed to an infection. His empire fell apart shortly after, as his former generals seized control of various regions by killing each other and Alex's children and family.
AtG was a fascinating young man who accomplished the incredible without the tools that would have made it possible for mere mortals - things like mass transportation, guns, modern medicine, Sterno, restaurants, GPS or pop-up tents. He was an indefatigable general with an explorer's heart and a hyper-competitive spirit. He never met a people he couldn't defeat. The impact he made on the ancient world is enormous, and still traceable to the current day.
What I like about Philip Freeman's biography is the breadth of political and military facts mixed with tons of color context. This author has done more than homework; the amount of detail provided in this account is extraordinary. Nothing seems invented, either; Freeman never implies what anybody was thinking or feeling without explicitly saying so. The whole book comes off smart and complete, without passing judgement on events. I wish all Histories were so impartial.
I highly, highly recommend this terrific, interesting account. Here's AI's best guess at how AtG probably looked irl. Pretty cute!
In the 4th century BC, Alexander was born to Philip of Macedon. Young Alexander somehow became obsessed with outdoing his father - a tall order, since Philip was a great conqueror in his own right. Alexander had the incredible fortune to be tutored by *The Aristotle* until a life-changing event at age 16. Thracian raiders attacked while Philip was on a military campaign, and as regent in his father's absence, it was up to Alexander to marshal his soldiers and defend the country. The rest, as they say, is history.
AtG convinced an army of seasoned Macedonian soldiers to follow him across 3 continents, reaching lands previously unknown in the Hellenistic world. In the space of 13 years, he explored his world and conquered Persia and much of India. He died from a sudden illness at age 32, when he was either poisoned or succumbed to an infection. His empire fell apart shortly after, as his former generals seized control of various regions by killing each other and Alex's children and family.
AtG was a fascinating young man who accomplished the incredible without the tools that would have made it possible for mere mortals - things like mass transportation, guns, modern medicine, Sterno, restaurants, GPS or pop-up tents. He was an indefatigable general with an explorer's heart and a hyper-competitive spirit. He never met a people he couldn't defeat. The impact he made on the ancient world is enormous, and still traceable to the current day.
What I like about Philip Freeman's biography is the breadth of political and military facts mixed with tons of color context. This author has done more than homework; the amount of detail provided in this account is extraordinary. Nothing seems invented, either; Freeman never implies what anybody was thinking or feeling without explicitly saying so. The whole book comes off smart and complete, without passing judgement on events. I wish all Histories were so impartial.
I highly, highly recommend this terrific, interesting account. Here's AI's best guess at how AtG probably looked irl. Pretty cute!
November 3, 2025
I couldn't put the book down. Alexander the Great has been a looming giant in my imagination and a source of inspiration for most of my life. I was very excited to read this book and was not disappointed.
The sheer scale of his accomplishments are almost unbelievable. The list of Alexander's accomplishments read like a Greek mythical tale, yet Freedman knits in the human aspect of Alexander. The author paints an image of a young man who embodies unbriddled human ambition, with all subsequent spendlor and horror. He could be superstitious, brash, arrogant, and cruel. Yet, Alexander could also also pious, far-sighted, audacious, and kind.
The book carefully crafted a story from historic accounts, yet over-layed common sense and historical context to the oftentimes brazen exaggerations of ancient writers. I believe Freedman did as good of a job as any human being could do in crafting bibliography on a character 2,200 years old.
The sheer scale of his accomplishments are almost unbelievable. The list of Alexander's accomplishments read like a Greek mythical tale, yet Freedman knits in the human aspect of Alexander. The author paints an image of a young man who embodies unbriddled human ambition, with all subsequent spendlor and horror. He could be superstitious, brash, arrogant, and cruel. Yet, Alexander could also also pious, far-sighted, audacious, and kind.
The book carefully crafted a story from historic accounts, yet over-layed common sense and historical context to the oftentimes brazen exaggerations of ancient writers. I believe Freedman did as good of a job as any human being could do in crafting bibliography on a character 2,200 years old.
January 22, 2025
Outstanding work. I really need to get better at learning Greek.
September 7, 2013
Classicist Philip Freeman writes really, really well. And unlike some biographers of Alexander the Great I've read, he gets out of the way of his subject. Alexander the Great and what motivated him remain elusive to me, but it's not Freeman's fault: I don't really understand the psychology of glory through conquest, or a man, as Freeman notes, "who conquered much of the ancient world simply because he could." Still, it is a very compelling story, and Freeman wraps it up with a really interesting and balanced account of the legacy of Alexander in Asia, Africa, and Europe, and his influence on the Roman empire. Freeman also includes a great glossary in the back of the book which I wish I had seen before I finished reading it! And there is also a list of references that is prefaced by a bibliographic essay. I really appreciate it when historians not only give a run-down of their sources, but also recommend certain books over others.
September 8, 2018
Tiểu sử của một trong những nhà chinh phục vĩ đại nhất của nhân loại, người chỉ trong vẻn vẹn hơn 10 năm đã lập nên đế chế Macedonia lớn nhất cho tới thời điểm đó, trên cả ba lục địa Á, Âu, Phi. Nếu còn sống thêm 20 năm, ai biết được, có thể ông sẽ kịp chinh phục hết Ấn Độ và đánh sang Trung Quốc. Thử tưởng tượng điều gì sẽ xảy ra khi các đội quân phalanx của Alexander giao chiến với quân đội các nước Tần, Nguỵ, Triệu...
Alexander là một thiên tài quân sự lớn, một vị tướng tài giỏi và can trường. Ông cũng có tài chính trị với đầy đủ sự nhẫn tâm và thủ đoạn của một nhà cai trị, và cũng là một kẻ chinh phục tàn bạo (người thường giết sạch dân một thành phố dám chống cự lại quân đội của ông tới cùng). Một con người ham đọc (luôn mang theo Illiad của Homer và Sử ký của Herodotus bên mình), học trò của triết gia Aristotle. Nhưng trên hết ông là một kẻ tham vọng khủng khiếp, với tham vọng khám phá, đi đến chiếm hết, thống trị tất cả những vùng đất mà con người có thể biết đến.
Và dường như đó là một người mơ mộng, người mơ ước được đi đến và chinh phục những vùng đất bí ẩn chưa ai từng đến. Với tất cả những sự điên khùng, thất thường, những khiếm khuyết và sự tàn bạo, cái khiến người ta cảm thấy cảm thông và ngưỡng mộ với Alexander là vì anh ta rất con người, với một ý chí không gì khuất phục và một niềm tin kinh khủng vào bản thân mình. Và có gì đó rất giống với Achiles của Homer (không phải ngẫu nhiên mà Alexander luôn coi Achiles là hình tượng mình hướng đến): một chiến binh bất bại, một kẻ tự cao tính khí thất thường, sự khao khát chiến thắng và niềm tự tin vô bờ bến vào chiến thắng và vào sự phù hộ của thánh thần.
Alexander là một thiên tài quân sự lớn, một vị tướng tài giỏi và can trường. Ông cũng có tài chính trị với đầy đủ sự nhẫn tâm và thủ đoạn của một nhà cai trị, và cũng là một kẻ chinh phục tàn bạo (người thường giết sạch dân một thành phố dám chống cự lại quân đội của ông tới cùng). Một con người ham đọc (luôn mang theo Illiad của Homer và Sử ký của Herodotus bên mình), học trò của triết gia Aristotle. Nhưng trên hết ông là một kẻ tham vọng khủng khiếp, với tham vọng khám phá, đi đến chiếm hết, thống trị tất cả những vùng đất mà con người có thể biết đến.
Và dường như đó là một người mơ mộng, người mơ ước được đi đến và chinh phục những vùng đất bí ẩn chưa ai từng đến. Với tất cả những sự điên khùng, thất thường, những khiếm khuyết và sự tàn bạo, cái khiến người ta cảm thấy cảm thông và ngưỡng mộ với Alexander là vì anh ta rất con người, với một ý chí không gì khuất phục và một niềm tin kinh khủng vào bản thân mình. Và có gì đó rất giống với Achiles của Homer (không phải ngẫu nhiên mà Alexander luôn coi Achiles là hình tượng mình hướng đến): một chiến binh bất bại, một kẻ tự cao tính khí thất thường, sự khao khát chiến thắng và niềm tự tin vô bờ bến vào chiến thắng và vào sự phù hộ của thánh thần.
September 19, 2014
An excellent, heroic portrait of Alexander. Freeman gives us a vivid portrait of an intelligent and decisive Alexander, a man of learning as well as a man of action, and a lively narrative of Alexander’s campaigns.
As a student of Aristotle, Alexander quickly mastered the works of Homer, Herodotus, and much else; he studied anything that he thought would help him fulfill his destiny as a man of victory. He was, of course, a brilliant tactician, and a conqueror above all.
Freeman gives us an insightful glimpse into Alexander’s motives and character. Alexander quickly won over the loyalty of his soldiers, who would fight to the death for him (with the exception of his campaign into Afghanistan, where they mutinied). Unlike Achilles, whom he claimed to be descendant of, Alexander was not one to pout in his tent as his men died in battle. He was a man of action, quick to lead cavalry charges against superior numbers, and he still managed to smash them again and again. Not one to stay at a tent while directing siege operations, Alexander personally scaled walls during them. He never ordered his men into battle: he charged right into it and called for his men to follow him.
Alexander could also be a brutal commander: Freeman shows us all of Alexander’s less appealing characteristics: his massacres of women and children, his killing of friends in drunken rages, his destruction of entire cities (even after capturing them) and basically sacrificing thousands of his own men to his mindblowing ambition. Alexander was always in search of more. Because he lacked a rival that could match him, he constantly felt the need to expand to new horizons, to outdo his own incredible exploits. “Alexander,” Freeman writes, “was and is the absolute embodiment of pure human ambition with all its good and evil consequences.”
Alexander scaled mountains, crossed deserts and rivers, and endured horrendous weather during his epic twelve-year journey to the ends of the known earth. It was literally Alexander against the world. Freeman gives us vivid, readable descriptions of all of Alexander’s campaigns and shows a good command of the subject matter and the various sources, showing all of their nuances, conflicts, and myths without making the story any less interesting.
As a student of Aristotle, Alexander quickly mastered the works of Homer, Herodotus, and much else; he studied anything that he thought would help him fulfill his destiny as a man of victory. He was, of course, a brilliant tactician, and a conqueror above all.
Freeman gives us an insightful glimpse into Alexander’s motives and character. Alexander quickly won over the loyalty of his soldiers, who would fight to the death for him (with the exception of his campaign into Afghanistan, where they mutinied). Unlike Achilles, whom he claimed to be descendant of, Alexander was not one to pout in his tent as his men died in battle. He was a man of action, quick to lead cavalry charges against superior numbers, and he still managed to smash them again and again. Not one to stay at a tent while directing siege operations, Alexander personally scaled walls during them. He never ordered his men into battle: he charged right into it and called for his men to follow him.
Alexander could also be a brutal commander: Freeman shows us all of Alexander’s less appealing characteristics: his massacres of women and children, his killing of friends in drunken rages, his destruction of entire cities (even after capturing them) and basically sacrificing thousands of his own men to his mindblowing ambition. Alexander was always in search of more. Because he lacked a rival that could match him, he constantly felt the need to expand to new horizons, to outdo his own incredible exploits. “Alexander,” Freeman writes, “was and is the absolute embodiment of pure human ambition with all its good and evil consequences.”
Alexander scaled mountains, crossed deserts and rivers, and endured horrendous weather during his epic twelve-year journey to the ends of the known earth. It was literally Alexander against the world. Freeman gives us vivid, readable descriptions of all of Alexander’s campaigns and shows a good command of the subject matter and the various sources, showing all of their nuances, conflicts, and myths without making the story any less interesting.
January 3, 2012
Being an Egyptologist, and I'm ashamed to say, I really didn't have a good, solid idea about who Alexander the Great was beyond his having been a young, determined Macedonian lad who established a vast empire during the 330s B.C.E., the likes of which had never been accomplished by subsequent rulers of similar age. I had known only of one of his military companions, Ptolemy, and his descendents.
I'm also a novelist and am finishing up my first historical fiction, which involves a bit of background on this intriguing figure in history. I wanted to be sure I "got things right," so I ended up finding this book.
I'd say Philip Freeman did a fantastic job of bringing me up to speed on this great man. In fact, he's fostered a little inspiration in me that I will use in my novel.
Where this biography fails - not miserably, mind you - is the author's objective: to present Alexander's life as a story. Yes, it was a story, but it was dry, devoid of the earmarks of a good tale, particularly where descriptions go. Perhaps Alexander experiences don't need to be pumped full of adjectives to make them more grandiose than they had been - Alexander is, after all, an intriguing person without using adjectives - but I didn't expect Freeman to present it so matter-of-factually, i.e., this happened, then that happened, he killed that guy, he conquered this country, he visited this place.
Despite this minute short-coming, I'd recommend this biography to anyone interested in learning about Alexander the Great.
I'm also a novelist and am finishing up my first historical fiction, which involves a bit of background on this intriguing figure in history. I wanted to be sure I "got things right," so I ended up finding this book.
I'd say Philip Freeman did a fantastic job of bringing me up to speed on this great man. In fact, he's fostered a little inspiration in me that I will use in my novel.
Where this biography fails - not miserably, mind you - is the author's objective: to present Alexander's life as a story. Yes, it was a story, but it was dry, devoid of the earmarks of a good tale, particularly where descriptions go. Perhaps Alexander experiences don't need to be pumped full of adjectives to make them more grandiose than they had been - Alexander is, after all, an intriguing person without using adjectives - but I didn't expect Freeman to present it so matter-of-factually, i.e., this happened, then that happened, he killed that guy, he conquered this country, he visited this place.
Despite this minute short-coming, I'd recommend this biography to anyone interested in learning about Alexander the Great.
August 3, 2018
Alexander was born on the sixth day of the month called hekatombaion. Though the Macedonians call it loös. On the same day the Temple of Artemis burned to the ground.
- Plutarch
(Spoiler warning for... Alexander's life I guess? I don't spoiler tag historical facts.)
I think this could be a good introductory work into Alexander the Great for people who just want an overview and the facts. It's also easy to read and tries to not be a dry academic text.
There are even some well chosen, really nice color photographies in the middle of the book, showing some places Alexander visited which I thought was a great idea to make the story come to life better.
Sadly otherwise it didn't bring anything new to the table. I did like that the book took its time to explain how his father Philip laid the groundwork for Alexander's empire in the beginning, but claiming that not many people give him credit for it is kind of outdated and sounded a bit like an excuse to talk about him. Almost all books I've read in recent years about Alexander give Philip quite a bit of spotlight.
Afterwards it was just the same timeline of events, as usual.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that it would be hard to find something truly new about a historical figure often written about - especially since more informations are from secondary sources only, but at some point I find simple recounting of events quite boring? Like I said, this work would probably be quite nice as an overview.
Now, the thing that bothered me the most was the handling of important people around Alexander. Barely any of them got a proper introduction and apart from maybe Philip, Olympias (though I'm generous with her) and of course Alexander himself, they got next to no focus.
You'd think that at least someone like Ptolemy would get a few lines about him beyond the bare necessities, but apart from a paragraph in the end, he remained just another name on the page. Even Alexander's time and relationship with Aristotle got the short end of the stick, resulting in names of friends just floating around without forging a connection in the reader's mind.
And then there is of course Hephaestion. At first I was pleasantly surprised that it was ackknowledged in the beginning, that homosexual affairs weren't unusual at the Macedonian court (well, Philip's death is kind of hard to explain without it), but when it came to Alexander and his Patroclus, the book remained weirdly "no homo"?
You know something is up when the description of Alexander honoring is hero Achilles at Troy is presented as follows:
Then, along with his companions, including Hephaestion, Alexander stripped off his clothes and oiled his naked body like an athlete. In honor of Achilles, Alexander and his friends then raced around the tomb and crowned it with garlands.
Patroclos who?
Let me be clear: I don't actually mind it when an author interprets their relationship as just being as close as brothers or platonic soulmates or childhood sweethearts or whatever, but I find it completely weird to just call Hephaestion "his best friend" over and over again without commenting or analysing anything. Without showing it. Not even some mild speculation. No, just a clinical "and he sent his best friend Hephaistion to do this or that" here and there.
Only after Hephaestion's death, the author deigned to cram in some feelings for him onto two pages - probably because Alexander having gone kind of mad with grief is one of the most undisputed things we know about him. Of course this way it rang totally false.
I'd accuse the author of actively avoiding the subject, cause it honestly read that way, but since Alexander's other friends got basically the same treatment, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
I just think it's unfortunate to have this big personality to write about and only concentrate on his genius when it comes to war. To be fair, this is not the only book that almost completely ignores the human Alexander in favor of Alexander THE GREAT. I basically learned nothing about why he was the way he was.
(Yes, I would have liked to have this book read like a novel as it was advertised to me. It didn't to me, but it also definitely wasn't as dry as an academic text. The only thing that could be confusing is the jumping back in time the author sometimes does without warning and some missing timeline information.)
I will keep this book on my shelf in case I want to look up something, since the author really did do this research for the most part and because it looks pretty.
- Plutarch
(Spoiler warning for... Alexander's life I guess? I don't spoiler tag historical facts.)
I think this could be a good introductory work into Alexander the Great for people who just want an overview and the facts. It's also easy to read and tries to not be a dry academic text.
There are even some well chosen, really nice color photographies in the middle of the book, showing some places Alexander visited which I thought was a great idea to make the story come to life better.
Sadly otherwise it didn't bring anything new to the table. I did like that the book took its time to explain how his father Philip laid the groundwork for Alexander's empire in the beginning, but claiming that not many people give him credit for it is kind of outdated and sounded a bit like an excuse to talk about him. Almost all books I've read in recent years about Alexander give Philip quite a bit of spotlight.
Afterwards it was just the same timeline of events, as usual.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that it would be hard to find something truly new about a historical figure often written about - especially since more informations are from secondary sources only, but at some point I find simple recounting of events quite boring? Like I said, this work would probably be quite nice as an overview.
Now, the thing that bothered me the most was the handling of important people around Alexander. Barely any of them got a proper introduction and apart from maybe Philip, Olympias (though I'm generous with her) and of course Alexander himself, they got next to no focus.
You'd think that at least someone like Ptolemy would get a few lines about him beyond the bare necessities, but apart from a paragraph in the end, he remained just another name on the page. Even Alexander's time and relationship with Aristotle got the short end of the stick, resulting in names of friends just floating around without forging a connection in the reader's mind.
And then there is of course Hephaestion. At first I was pleasantly surprised that it was ackknowledged in the beginning, that homosexual affairs weren't unusual at the Macedonian court (well, Philip's death is kind of hard to explain without it), but when it came to Alexander and his Patroclus, the book remained weirdly "no homo"?
You know something is up when the description of Alexander honoring is hero Achilles at Troy is presented as follows:
Then, along with his companions, including Hephaestion, Alexander stripped off his clothes and oiled his naked body like an athlete. In honor of Achilles, Alexander and his friends then raced around the tomb and crowned it with garlands.
Patroclos who?
Let me be clear: I don't actually mind it when an author interprets their relationship as just being as close as brothers or platonic soulmates or childhood sweethearts or whatever, but I find it completely weird to just call Hephaestion "his best friend" over and over again without commenting or analysing anything. Without showing it. Not even some mild speculation. No, just a clinical "and he sent his best friend Hephaistion to do this or that" here and there.
Only after Hephaestion's death, the author deigned to cram in some feelings for him onto two pages - probably because Alexander having gone kind of mad with grief is one of the most undisputed things we know about him. Of course this way it rang totally false.
I'd accuse the author of actively avoiding the subject, cause it honestly read that way, but since Alexander's other friends got basically the same treatment, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
I just think it's unfortunate to have this big personality to write about and only concentrate on his genius when it comes to war. To be fair, this is not the only book that almost completely ignores the human Alexander in favor of Alexander THE GREAT. I basically learned nothing about why he was the way he was.
(Yes, I would have liked to have this book read like a novel as it was advertised to me. It didn't to me, but it also definitely wasn't as dry as an academic text. The only thing that could be confusing is the jumping back in time the author sometimes does without warning and some missing timeline information.)
I will keep this book on my shelf in case I want to look up something, since the author really did do this research for the most part and because it looks pretty.
May 15, 2017
A lively and enthralling biography of one of the most incredible leaders in history. The son of King Phillip of Macedonia, Alexander was tutored as a teenager by Aristotle, and then succeeded to the throne, after his father was assassinated, when Alexander was only 20. And, as is often said, the rest is history.
The remainder of his life, until his untimely death at age 32, was spent leading a vast army across the known world, conquering kingdoms, establishing cities, and building an incredible empire that stretched all the way to India. Alexander was a gifted leader, who could be both compassionate and utterly ruthless. His cleverness in warfare and strategy has been studied in military circles ever since, and he was never known to lose a battle. During the years of his campaigns, he also spread the Greek language and culture throughout the many lands he conquered, which also had a significant impact in history.
A fascinating and well-written biography about an amazing man.
The remainder of his life, until his untimely death at age 32, was spent leading a vast army across the known world, conquering kingdoms, establishing cities, and building an incredible empire that stretched all the way to India. Alexander was a gifted leader, who could be both compassionate and utterly ruthless. His cleverness in warfare and strategy has been studied in military circles ever since, and he was never known to lose a battle. During the years of his campaigns, he also spread the Greek language and culture throughout the many lands he conquered, which also had a significant impact in history.
A fascinating and well-written biography about an amazing man.
October 13, 2020
Excellent; detailed and thoughtful while keeping to the point. Freeman presents the history as we are best to know it and explains competing retellings with their authorial contexts when we're unsure of the exact truth of events. One of the best historical nonfictions I've read.
December 8, 2022
This book is really easy to read, which is no small feat for a history book. But I think the author went *too* far in dumbing down the content and form for a general audience. The biggest issue is that the text contains no in-line references or footnotes. This makes it very difficult to judge which claims we can be confident in believing, and which are more uncertain or disputed among historians. Although I enjoyed reading the book, in the end I found it quite dissatisfying as I'm not sure how much of it to believe.
For example, here's how Freeman describes the Gordian knot:
"A famously difficult knot around the yoke of an ancient wagon was undone [in Gordium] in 333 by Alexander, some say by unloosing and others by slashing through it with his sword."
Nowhere does he mention that that Gordian knot is, apparently, just a myth or legend (see, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/science/2...). In fact, I'm genuinely still confused about the knot's actual historical status. Am I being ridiculously naive in thinking it's even plausible that an ancient, unsolvable knot actually existed? Or am I being ridiculously cynical in scrutinizing Freeman's narrative so closely?
A life as dramatic as Alexander's contains dozens of similar stories that straddle the line between history and mythology. But Freeman's style gives little help to a reader who wants to understand the historiography of Alexander - what do we know with confidence, what do we think is probably true, and what can we only speculate about?
It makes for a frustrating read, in my opinion, because if I can't differentiate between the true history and the dramatic embellishments, I'm left doubting the veracity of basically all the interesting details in the book.
At the end of the book there's a relatively sparse list of fragmentary quotes with page numbers, and the sources from which they're drawn. So some key claims, perhaps especially controversial ones, are sources. But the list is far from comprehensive (averaging something like one note for every two pages). And why not just include superscript endnotes linking these citations to the passages they support directly in the text? Endnotes are unobtrusive and provide a much better reader experience. How is a reader supposed to engage with these citations - check the list at the end of the book whenever they read a questionable claim in the main text, hoping that it happens to be one of the claims that is cited?
Moreover, Freeman doesn't annotate these citations, he just cites ancient sources and page numbers. So this still doesn't help the reader understand which claims are well-supported and which we should be more skeptical of.
Ultimately I don't think I'd recommend this book to anyone Serious historians will find it too brief and shallow. But if you're a casual reader, like myself, then I don't think this is the "one" Alexander the Great book you should read, because it doesn't provide enough detail to differentiate between fact and fiction in his life! Although it's a quick and easy read, I wish I'd instead read one of the older, denser biographies. Hopefully they'll provide more context on the challenges of writing about historical figures whose lives we can see only through a fog of history.
For example, here's how Freeman describes the Gordian knot:
"A famously difficult knot around the yoke of an ancient wagon was undone [in Gordium] in 333 by Alexander, some say by unloosing and others by slashing through it with his sword."
Nowhere does he mention that that Gordian knot is, apparently, just a myth or legend (see, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/science/2...). In fact, I'm genuinely still confused about the knot's actual historical status. Am I being ridiculously naive in thinking it's even plausible that an ancient, unsolvable knot actually existed? Or am I being ridiculously cynical in scrutinizing Freeman's narrative so closely?
A life as dramatic as Alexander's contains dozens of similar stories that straddle the line between history and mythology. But Freeman's style gives little help to a reader who wants to understand the historiography of Alexander - what do we know with confidence, what do we think is probably true, and what can we only speculate about?
It makes for a frustrating read, in my opinion, because if I can't differentiate between the true history and the dramatic embellishments, I'm left doubting the veracity of basically all the interesting details in the book.
At the end of the book there's a relatively sparse list of fragmentary quotes with page numbers, and the sources from which they're drawn. So some key claims, perhaps especially controversial ones, are sources. But the list is far from comprehensive (averaging something like one note for every two pages). And why not just include superscript endnotes linking these citations to the passages they support directly in the text? Endnotes are unobtrusive and provide a much better reader experience. How is a reader supposed to engage with these citations - check the list at the end of the book whenever they read a questionable claim in the main text, hoping that it happens to be one of the claims that is cited?
Moreover, Freeman doesn't annotate these citations, he just cites ancient sources and page numbers. So this still doesn't help the reader understand which claims are well-supported and which we should be more skeptical of.
Ultimately I don't think I'd recommend this book to anyone Serious historians will find it too brief and shallow. But if you're a casual reader, like myself, then I don't think this is the "one" Alexander the Great book you should read, because it doesn't provide enough detail to differentiate between fact and fiction in his life! Although it's a quick and easy read, I wish I'd instead read one of the older, denser biographies. Hopefully they'll provide more context on the challenges of writing about historical figures whose lives we can see only through a fog of history.
February 25, 2024
After reading Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman, I now get why people are still fascinated by his life and legend thousands of years after he lived. There’s a mix of so many great elements that people traditionally seem to gravitate towards: adventure, war, mythology and religion, history, insight into ancient cultures, a sense of youthful ambition and a lust for power, and a character whose feats rival some of the demigods of ancient mythology.
The narrative flows smoothly and chronologically through Alexander’s life. It is easy to follow and never feels like it gets bogged down with too many tangents or unnecessary information. Over the latter half of the book, I increasingly got more and more interested and had a really hard time putting it down. My playlist of music I usually listen to at the gym was abandoned so I could listen to the audiobook while I worked out. I listened in the car. I listened while doing dishes or making food. I couldn’t stop. At night, I would find the places he conquered or visited on the map and followed along which was highly interesting.
Everything the author tells you feels reliable. He will explain if the ancient sources differ on a particular detail of a given story and explain why he thinks one is more likely given the context and other evidence. The book feels comprehensive like you wouldn’t need to read another biography on Alexander the Great after it. But that depends on your level of interest. This book has a fast paced narrative, jumping from battle to battle, with little down time in between. This lends itself to an exciting narrative but also potentially leaves room for the super curious about Alexander the Great to read a more textbook-like book with every possible detail we can know about the man, although again I'm not sure it would be necessary unless one wanted to dial down in on a particular aspect of his life.
While reading, one is struck by the reality of this man. How he accomplished what he did before the ancient Romans came to power or before Jesus was born. The fact that he died at the age of 32 and yet accomplished so much in that incredibly short amount of time that his story lives on thousands of years later. We learn how he was a man of contradictions: merciful and benevolent on one hand and callous and absolutely brutal on the other.
Like me as a modern reader, I’m sure many others struggle with their feelings towards Alexander the Great. If he were alive today, he would be labeled a war criminal having committed crimes against humanity many times over. As the book says, “Alexander was and is the absolute embodiment of pure human ambition with all its good and evil consequences.” We can condemn the terrible parts about what he did but also as the book says, “...we can’t help but admire a man who did such great deeds.”
The narrative flows smoothly and chronologically through Alexander’s life. It is easy to follow and never feels like it gets bogged down with too many tangents or unnecessary information. Over the latter half of the book, I increasingly got more and more interested and had a really hard time putting it down. My playlist of music I usually listen to at the gym was abandoned so I could listen to the audiobook while I worked out. I listened in the car. I listened while doing dishes or making food. I couldn’t stop. At night, I would find the places he conquered or visited on the map and followed along which was highly interesting.
Everything the author tells you feels reliable. He will explain if the ancient sources differ on a particular detail of a given story and explain why he thinks one is more likely given the context and other evidence. The book feels comprehensive like you wouldn’t need to read another biography on Alexander the Great after it. But that depends on your level of interest. This book has a fast paced narrative, jumping from battle to battle, with little down time in between. This lends itself to an exciting narrative but also potentially leaves room for the super curious about Alexander the Great to read a more textbook-like book with every possible detail we can know about the man, although again I'm not sure it would be necessary unless one wanted to dial down in on a particular aspect of his life.
While reading, one is struck by the reality of this man. How he accomplished what he did before the ancient Romans came to power or before Jesus was born. The fact that he died at the age of 32 and yet accomplished so much in that incredibly short amount of time that his story lives on thousands of years later. We learn how he was a man of contradictions: merciful and benevolent on one hand and callous and absolutely brutal on the other.
Like me as a modern reader, I’m sure many others struggle with their feelings towards Alexander the Great. If he were alive today, he would be labeled a war criminal having committed crimes against humanity many times over. As the book says, “Alexander was and is the absolute embodiment of pure human ambition with all its good and evil consequences.” We can condemn the terrible parts about what he did but also as the book says, “...we can’t help but admire a man who did such great deeds.”
August 21, 2022
It's basically the Macedonian Mahabharata. Alexander's story is breathtaking, and Freeman's writing is wonderful. It's rare that I plow through a book this quickly, but I couldn't wait to hear what happened next.
June 20, 2020
Finished up Philip Freeman's biography of Alexander the Great. Has there ever been a general greater than Alexander? What an epic adventure. What would I give to be transported back 2300 years to be one of his soldiers. Incredible story of an army full of incredible men.
March 19, 2022
He took some liberties...there were some questionable "facts" and events. But very accessible for the laymen, as a brief introduction to Alexander. I wish he'd gone into more detail with regard to Alexander's relationships.
September 5, 2025
I really liked listening to this book. As someone who knew lots of the little stories about Alexander (from well researched historical fiction mostly) it was nice to get a solid overview and put a lot of pieces together.
April 8, 2025
Another banger from Philip Freeman and quite possibly my favorite history book ever. Philip just writes so great and I’m never bored with any chapter. This makes me hate Paul Cartledge’s book even more now that I read a book over the same topic and it went from the worst biography to the best biography I’ve read over the same topic lol.
Alexander the Great was a man of his time, which means he was a blood thirsty warmonger. The slaughterer of hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of manifest destiny. But damn does it make for an entertaining and shocking read.
If you have a mild interest in fantasy, I recommend any Philip Freeman book!
Alexander the Great was a man of his time, which means he was a blood thirsty warmonger. The slaughterer of hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of manifest destiny. But damn does it make for an entertaining and shocking read.
If you have a mild interest in fantasy, I recommend any Philip Freeman book!
July 18, 2016
Philip Freeman crafts Alexander's story as a captivating novel. The description of his long campaign is interspersed by curious events, facts and legends of the lands he travels and interesting reflections on his character, all of which make Alexander's figure come to life. Yes, he was a great general, a shrewd politician, but also a man, with human faults despite all his glory. Highly recommended.
October 18, 2021
I knew nothing about Alexander the Great, and this book definitely filled me in as it seems to be a thorough account of his life. It is well-written and I found the story interesting all the way to the end. It wasn't quite as captivating as other biographies I've read, mainly because his life is not particularly inspiring to me. Alexander inherited his kingdom and then used his strategic and political brilliance to take the kingdom to unprecedented conquests.
May 11, 2020
http://www.bookwormblues.net/2020/05/...
I have always done my level best to avoid reading much about Alexander the Great. The issues I find with him are a few fold. First, I can’t really grasp military stuff. Battle formations and the like don’t do basically anything for me. The best way to get me to fall asleep at night is by talking in detail about battles. I just fundamentally do not care. And let’s be honest here. That’s basically what Alexander the Great is. A whooooooooooole lot of battles. So yeah, I’ve avoided him for this reason alone.
Secondly, I find a lot of these dudes from antiquity have somehow transcended their humanity and the hero-worship kind of makes me really uncomfortable. I understand the desire and need to admire someone and all their strengths because, let’s be honest here, there’s a lot to admire. However, it seems like these people have been romanticized past the point of believability. Somewhere in all this mess since Alexander’s life, he has stopped being human.
I can’t even really remember why I decided to read a biography of Alexander the Great, but the desire did fill me up last week and I did my level best to find a biography that was both succinct and well informed, and did away with a whole lot of this hero worship and battle details that so displeases me. I landed on this one by Philip Freeman. And… I really liked it.
Alexander the Great is a figure who is larger than life. People throughout history have been praising this guy’s name. He accomplished things that just about anyone since then hasn’t been able to accomplish. People in Rome worshipped this guy. Alexander himself thought he was a direct descendent of Hercules. He seemed impossible to stand against. If you went along with him, he’d treat you well, but woe upon those who stood against him. They did not end well (example, Tyre).
In all honesty, I found (which I expecting, knowing myself as well as I do) the parts of the biography that detailed his daily life, and his life before his battles against the Persian Empire to be the most interesting. These are the places where you find the man behind the myth. I’d also really, really love someone to write a biography of his father, Philip (maybe someone has?) because that guy seems really interesting. He truly paved the way for Alexander to become what he has become.
Macedon was a country that was beset by strife. Philip, Alexander’s father, was taken as a hostage as a youth as a sort of “fair treatment” bribe by the Greeks. Essentially, you play nice over there in Macedon, and we won’t cut Philip’s head off. Philip, however, was taken as a hostage by one of the best soldier generals in the Greek world at the time, and he basically got the best military training in antiquity due to that. This allowed Philip, when he was released, to seize power (by exiling and/or killing his half-brothers), and then rebuild his army from the ground up, bringing all sorts of novel military inventions into the mix, like 18 foot spears and unique formations that made it almost impossible to stand against the soldiers. He took a broken, crumbling nation, and slowly expanded the borders until he had created an empire. Until even the Greeks feared him.
Insert his son and seven wives into this mix, and you’ve got a real nice setup for empire building.
There are mysteries, of course. No one knows, for example, if Alexander or his mother had any part in the assassination of Philip, though I personally think it might be one of the least surprising things that have ever happened if, in fact, they did (Philip had divorced Olympias, and claimed Alexander was not his son, so at the point of his death, there was really no love lost here). They had everything to gain by Philip’s death, and not much to lose. That being said, nothing has been proven or could really be concluded one way or the other.
The other thing is, of course, Alexander’s death. Now, until this point, I’d always heard he had been assassinated. However, at the end of this book, Freeman talks a bit about Alexander’s death. He had a few spells of falling ill throughout his campaign. He’d also struggled with injuries, the most recent one was a collapsed lung in a battle somewhere in India. He had dodged a whole lot of death, but that right there is enough to weaken anyone’s immune system. Then, add to it the fact that he lived in an army camp, and dysentery and malaria were likely as common as blowing your nose, and you’ve got a nice stew for some illness to creep in and do a whole lot of damage. So, while I did at one point think he was likely assassinated, (and maybe he really was, who knows) I also see now that there were a WHOLE LOT of opportunities for an illness to sweep him away, and it’s kind of amazing he lived as long as he did, considering all the battles and risks.
What was, perhaps, the most interesting for me was how cunning Alexander was. He was not really afraid to think outside of the box in any situation, and he seemed to have a grasp on psychology in a way that not many others did. He knew that to mint coins showing his various victories would be a great way to spread word about him around his expanding empire, with very little effort on his part. He was not afraid to deal swiftly and ferociously with those who stood against him, and he seemed to be pretty fair, considering everything. However, the farther out into the world he went, the more he seemed to need constant praise, the more he seemed to drink, the more he believed himself godlike and impenetrable. He seemed outgrow his own humanity.
It is unfortunate that he left his empire with no true heir, and a book called Ghost on the Throne is going to be one of my next reads, which talks about what happened after Alexander died and everyone in his empire started fighting for a toehold on what he left behind.
He was quite an amazing man, but I didn’t end up admiring him the way I expected to. He was an empire builder. He was cruel and he was merciful. He was a formidable man with a devious, cunning mind and an eye to expand his borders. He was, however, also stunningly, absolutely human and had plenty of flaws. Perhaps what I loved the most about this biography is how well Freeman told Alexander’s story without getting bogged down in battle formations and the like. The battles were presented, the facts given, no military glorification, which was what I’ve been probably most worried about regarding any read of Alexander the Great.
Freeman wrote a fantastic biography here. A great starting point and fantastically accessible. Highly recommend.
I have always done my level best to avoid reading much about Alexander the Great. The issues I find with him are a few fold. First, I can’t really grasp military stuff. Battle formations and the like don’t do basically anything for me. The best way to get me to fall asleep at night is by talking in detail about battles. I just fundamentally do not care. And let’s be honest here. That’s basically what Alexander the Great is. A whooooooooooole lot of battles. So yeah, I’ve avoided him for this reason alone.
Secondly, I find a lot of these dudes from antiquity have somehow transcended their humanity and the hero-worship kind of makes me really uncomfortable. I understand the desire and need to admire someone and all their strengths because, let’s be honest here, there’s a lot to admire. However, it seems like these people have been romanticized past the point of believability. Somewhere in all this mess since Alexander’s life, he has stopped being human.
I can’t even really remember why I decided to read a biography of Alexander the Great, but the desire did fill me up last week and I did my level best to find a biography that was both succinct and well informed, and did away with a whole lot of this hero worship and battle details that so displeases me. I landed on this one by Philip Freeman. And… I really liked it.
Alexander the Great is a figure who is larger than life. People throughout history have been praising this guy’s name. He accomplished things that just about anyone since then hasn’t been able to accomplish. People in Rome worshipped this guy. Alexander himself thought he was a direct descendent of Hercules. He seemed impossible to stand against. If you went along with him, he’d treat you well, but woe upon those who stood against him. They did not end well (example, Tyre).
In all honesty, I found (which I expecting, knowing myself as well as I do) the parts of the biography that detailed his daily life, and his life before his battles against the Persian Empire to be the most interesting. These are the places where you find the man behind the myth. I’d also really, really love someone to write a biography of his father, Philip (maybe someone has?) because that guy seems really interesting. He truly paved the way for Alexander to become what he has become.
Macedon was a country that was beset by strife. Philip, Alexander’s father, was taken as a hostage as a youth as a sort of “fair treatment” bribe by the Greeks. Essentially, you play nice over there in Macedon, and we won’t cut Philip’s head off. Philip, however, was taken as a hostage by one of the best soldier generals in the Greek world at the time, and he basically got the best military training in antiquity due to that. This allowed Philip, when he was released, to seize power (by exiling and/or killing his half-brothers), and then rebuild his army from the ground up, bringing all sorts of novel military inventions into the mix, like 18 foot spears and unique formations that made it almost impossible to stand against the soldiers. He took a broken, crumbling nation, and slowly expanded the borders until he had created an empire. Until even the Greeks feared him.
Insert his son and seven wives into this mix, and you’ve got a real nice setup for empire building.
There are mysteries, of course. No one knows, for example, if Alexander or his mother had any part in the assassination of Philip, though I personally think it might be one of the least surprising things that have ever happened if, in fact, they did (Philip had divorced Olympias, and claimed Alexander was not his son, so at the point of his death, there was really no love lost here). They had everything to gain by Philip’s death, and not much to lose. That being said, nothing has been proven or could really be concluded one way or the other.
The other thing is, of course, Alexander’s death. Now, until this point, I’d always heard he had been assassinated. However, at the end of this book, Freeman talks a bit about Alexander’s death. He had a few spells of falling ill throughout his campaign. He’d also struggled with injuries, the most recent one was a collapsed lung in a battle somewhere in India. He had dodged a whole lot of death, but that right there is enough to weaken anyone’s immune system. Then, add to it the fact that he lived in an army camp, and dysentery and malaria were likely as common as blowing your nose, and you’ve got a nice stew for some illness to creep in and do a whole lot of damage. So, while I did at one point think he was likely assassinated, (and maybe he really was, who knows) I also see now that there were a WHOLE LOT of opportunities for an illness to sweep him away, and it’s kind of amazing he lived as long as he did, considering all the battles and risks.
What was, perhaps, the most interesting for me was how cunning Alexander was. He was not really afraid to think outside of the box in any situation, and he seemed to have a grasp on psychology in a way that not many others did. He knew that to mint coins showing his various victories would be a great way to spread word about him around his expanding empire, with very little effort on his part. He was not afraid to deal swiftly and ferociously with those who stood against him, and he seemed to be pretty fair, considering everything. However, the farther out into the world he went, the more he seemed to need constant praise, the more he seemed to drink, the more he believed himself godlike and impenetrable. He seemed outgrow his own humanity.
It is unfortunate that he left his empire with no true heir, and a book called Ghost on the Throne is going to be one of my next reads, which talks about what happened after Alexander died and everyone in his empire started fighting for a toehold on what he left behind.
He was quite an amazing man, but I didn’t end up admiring him the way I expected to. He was an empire builder. He was cruel and he was merciful. He was a formidable man with a devious, cunning mind and an eye to expand his borders. He was, however, also stunningly, absolutely human and had plenty of flaws. Perhaps what I loved the most about this biography is how well Freeman told Alexander’s story without getting bogged down in battle formations and the like. The battles were presented, the facts given, no military glorification, which was what I’ve been probably most worried about regarding any read of Alexander the Great.
Freeman wrote a fantastic biography here. A great starting point and fantastically accessible. Highly recommend.
September 16, 2025
The author offers a well-written general biography of Alexander the Great and a sweeping, non-exhaustive account of his campaigns from his crossing of the Hellespont into the Persian Empire to his death in Babylon.
Set in a theatre that stretches from the shores of the eastern Mediterranean basin all the way to the freezing heights of the Hindu Kush mountains, the author presents a captivating narrative of Alexander’s exploits. He covers major encounters with rebel forces and Persian armies along the way without lingering too much on specifics, since this is a general history.
The encounters are described with enough detail to form a clear picture yet without slipping into the terrain of academic examination. Whenever possible we get a critical treatment of controversial moments weighing different interpretations of what likely happened. Since no firsthand sources exist, the account is inevitably shaped by interpretation and reconstruction but it still manages to deliver a somewhat complex yet accessible portrait of who Alexander was and what his motives might have been.
For readers who’ve only encountered Alexander’s life and campaigns indirectly through references, this book is for you. It’s a general biography but it offers 300 pages of necessary background to serve as a stepping stone into other works. It’s a solid introduction to the subject.
I absolutely recommend this book.
Rating: 4/5.
Set in a theatre that stretches from the shores of the eastern Mediterranean basin all the way to the freezing heights of the Hindu Kush mountains, the author presents a captivating narrative of Alexander’s exploits. He covers major encounters with rebel forces and Persian armies along the way without lingering too much on specifics, since this is a general history.
The encounters are described with enough detail to form a clear picture yet without slipping into the terrain of academic examination. Whenever possible we get a critical treatment of controversial moments weighing different interpretations of what likely happened. Since no firsthand sources exist, the account is inevitably shaped by interpretation and reconstruction but it still manages to deliver a somewhat complex yet accessible portrait of who Alexander was and what his motives might have been.
For readers who’ve only encountered Alexander’s life and campaigns indirectly through references, this book is for you. It’s a general biography but it offers 300 pages of necessary background to serve as a stepping stone into other works. It’s a solid introduction to the subject.
I absolutely recommend this book.
Rating: 4/5.
April 19, 2023
Written for the lay reader, Alexander the Great is an easily digested biography of a man who lived in the ancient past, but who left a lasting legacy of change that has affected the world.
The most interesting part of Alexander's life is the uncertainty about who he was. At times he was a farsighted leader with a goal of connecting diverse cultures. At others, he was a hot-tempered, megalomaniac given to excessive drinking. One thing history agrees on is that he was one of the most brilliant military strategists who ever lived.
The most interesting part of Alexander's life is the uncertainty about who he was. At times he was a farsighted leader with a goal of connecting diverse cultures. At others, he was a hot-tempered, megalomaniac given to excessive drinking. One thing history agrees on is that he was one of the most brilliant military strategists who ever lived.
July 12, 2023
A great account of why he is remembered as the Great to this day, even despite his terrible actions customary of any king. I would have enjoyed more detailed maps as it was sometimes hard to visualize and understand some of the geographical descriptions, but was still a compelling read that lived up to the author's desire "to write a biography of Alexander that is first and foremost a story". There are plenty of reminders throughout of how key good fortune is to any great historical figure, but Alexander's genius that extends beyond military strategy is highlighted. I still would have liked to see more discussion of his political decisions and the thinking behind them, but I understand the sources are very limited. Overall, this was a fair and enjoyable read of one of the undoubtedly Greatest figures in human history.
September 19, 2020
What a fascinating man Alexander was! A great read it you're interested in ancient history!
December 31, 2019
Highly readable without talking down to non-historians or those unfamiliar with the broad outlines of Alexander's life. Freeman condenses a great deal of information into this account, which deals largely with the military history. Hephaistion is barely mentioned. Freeman seems to take for granted the idea that the friendship was intimate, but unlike Mary Renault he doesn't then create an Alexander who is a romantic hero. While Alexander was capable of chivalrous gestures such as his generous treatment of Darius' family, Freeman is quick to point out the political or military advantages that accrued to the king as the result. If he was defied, Alexander was as ruthless as any other warlord during the period. If Freeman can be believed, Persian mothers scared their children with the mere mention of his name. Alexander as bogeyman!
Freeman hits his stride in the last few pages when he lays out the continuing impact of Alexander upon history. He argues that Alexander made even the spread of Christianity possible. Freeman offers a persuasive argument that the Macedonian conqueror may have been the most influential figure of the ancient world, with lasting effect to this day on the West.
Freeman hits his stride in the last few pages when he lays out the continuing impact of Alexander upon history. He argues that Alexander made even the spread of Christianity possible. Freeman offers a persuasive argument that the Macedonian conqueror may have been the most influential figure of the ancient world, with lasting effect to this day on the West.
January 5, 2019
Even though it's been a few years since I've read this magnificent book I still recall much of its content vividly as if I was reading it a few weeks ago! Philip Freeman is an outstanding storyteller.
You can see the journey start from Philip, Alexander's father, then proceed with Alexander's story when he was a little boy and accompany him through his growth, feats and downfalls, seeing all his strength and weaknesses. For those of you who are interested in Ancient Macedonian culture and its connection to Ancient Greeks, and to delve more deeply into the psychology of Alexander along with his tactic genius then this is for you. There are many interesting tidbits where you will not see the movies, for example how he handled an opposing tribe that had barricaded itself in a steep mountain with boulder traps, or how Alexander put his engineers to work in the Siege of Tyre, his mad idea to cross a river in full armor, his journey back across the desert. All in all, it's a light and interesting read.
You can see the journey start from Philip, Alexander's father, then proceed with Alexander's story when he was a little boy and accompany him through his growth, feats and downfalls, seeing all his strength and weaknesses. For those of you who are interested in Ancient Macedonian culture and its connection to Ancient Greeks, and to delve more deeply into the psychology of Alexander along with his tactic genius then this is for you. There are many interesting tidbits where you will not see the movies, for example how he handled an opposing tribe that had barricaded itself in a steep mountain with boulder traps, or how Alexander put his engineers to work in the Siege of Tyre, his mad idea to cross a river in full armor, his journey back across the desert. All in all, it's a light and interesting read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 520 reviews