The Virtues of War: A Novel of Alexander the Great

The Virtues of War, while not quite on par with Pressfield's magnum opus, Gates of Fire, is a fantastic novel. Pressfield has really found his strengths as a writer and put them to good use here. As always, the research is impeccable, and where he departs from history he acknowledges it (something the self-deluded Dan Brown could learn to do). He has also cut away a lot of the fat that tends to bog down stories about Alexander, making this a fast-moving, lean novel that, while not stylistically spare, doesn't waste time dwelling on pointless details. The pacing is very good, better than Gates of Fire, actually, and while the beginning is a tad slow, once Pressfield hits his stride at about page 50 it's impossible to put the book down. The biggest improvement in Pressfield's writing that I noticed was in the ending. Gates of Fire, once the battle of Thermopylae ended, seemed to drag a bit as Xerxes's court stenographer tied up all the loose ends of the story. Even yet, the ending was powerful, and what Pressfield has done here is to pull together a concise, well-timed conclusion that doesn't take forever to pan out and yet doesn't feel hurried. The result is fantastic, moving, and very satisfying. Historically speaking, this is the best fictional Alexander I've encountered. His pyschology makes sense, and it becomes clear later in the novel that Alexander is not entirely with it--he often feels he is in control of himself when everyone around him is cowering before his fits of rage. It also helps that Pressfield doesn't dwell on all the Freudian bull that most stories of Alexander are overflowing with these days. The supporting characters are very well drawn and, while there are certainly a lot of them, easy to keep track of (after a while). I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in ancient history but not patient enough for a scholarly book, or anyone who would like a good follow-up to Gates of Fire.

If you are looking for a historical novel of great psychological depth that explores the complexities of one of history's more enigmatic figures, look elsewhere. Alexander the Great was not a personality of more complexity than any one of us. The only subject he excelled at, the only one he showed any interest in, was war. Pressfield has no gripping passages describing an anguished Alexander locked in a moral debate with himself over the justness of his cause or the legitimacy of his methods, because there is no historical evidence that Alexander had any such doubts. "Since I was prepared to pay with my own life," Pressfield's Alexander tells his father early in the novel, "so I was sanctioned to take the life of the foe." It would be wrong, though, and Pressfield conveys this well, to conclude that Alexander lacked human feelings or emotion. Within his realm of war Alexander comes across as a believable human being, perhaps much like Patton or Guderian had they been absolute rulers of their countries instead of merely talented generals. Alexander, in the speech just quoted, is not justifying butchery, but explaining to a skeptical father how he can fraternize with members of the enemy's elite fighting units, even exchange gifts with them, and then slaughter them quickly and efficiently the next day. Indeed, creating strong emotional bonds was and is the foundation of a unit's fighting power. So Alexander can trade barracks banter with sergeants one minute and bawl tears with his senior commanders the next. He sleeps on a rude campaign cot and shares all the privations of the march. At one point near the end of their 22,000 mile campaign, he bares his chest and asks if any of his now reluctant compatriots can show more battle scars than he. I know of no book that excels this one in drawing the portrait of leadership. Alexander realizes that emotional bonds and the valor they inspire are not enough. There are no finer warriors, no better unit on the planet than the Theban Sacred Band, bringing Alexander to tears of admiration as he talks with them before Chaeronea. Yet he kills them all, with the exception of 20 or so who are too wounded even to commit suicide. As Alexander says to his page when recounting the battle years later, Thebes and its Sacred Band, for all their virtues, lost because they did not understand modern warfare. Alexander does. Valor wins fights, but cold, clear intelligence wins battles. He commands a standing army whose officers and men have not just mastered the art of phalanx warfare, they have invented deceptive ways to turn the phalanx's strengths into exploitable weaknesses. Alexander leads a true combined arms team, perhaps the world's first, using both infantry and cavalry, each employed to play off of the strengths of the other. Except for its weapons, Alexander's is a thoroughly modern force. This is not Pressfield's imagination but historical fact--Alexander was perhaps the first practitioner

I went through the entire book in one day. It was extremely fast reading, and I just could not put it down. The Battles of Issus and Gaugamela are depicted with such detail, you are there. You can see (or can't see) the confusion of the troops massing all over. Pressfield invites the reader into the head of Alexander, the confusion, the genius of his military profession. His boyhood friend, Hephaestion, his fathers veteran generals, Ptolemy and Parmenio, all are described with detail. With the upcoming release of Oliver Stone's cinematic view of ALexander, one must first read Pressfields "Virtues of War." Not up to historical accuracy as historical texts, this novel of historical fiction captures the imagination. Alexander tell the story of his life to Itanes, his brother-in-law. We begin with his birth, and move to his youth of 18, where he leads the Companions against the Sacred Band of Thebes, to his re-taking of the Greek city states after his father's assassination. He invades Persia, fights at Granicus, Issus, Guagamela, then enters Babylon. My only wish is that Pressfield took the time to see into ALexander's head during the siege of Tyre, and his comparison to Achilles when he dragged the King of Tyre at the back of his chariot. I may not be that educated on Alexander, but at the age of 20, I can see myself better than anyone who is an aged historian. I am at his age in the novel, I am there. I have become obsessed with Alexander with my father, reading to me at a young age, instead of Dr. Suess. I found this to be a novel greater than "Tides of War" and ranks with "Gates of Fire" as well as, "Killer Angels." No one does Ancient History better than Pressfield. This book is a must read. Pressfield has put much historical accuracy into the novel (with the exception of minor things like the use of mile, foot, of which he makes a note) and places like Afghanistan (of which he makes a note). Pressfield has taken Alexander's tactics, and tranformed them into lecture notes coming straight from the man himself. I mean, you are there, listening to him beside a fire in the camp, you see his eyes, his blonde hair, his many years of experience in death, yet minimal years of age. He is a companion, a 'hetairoi,' a friend. Alexander is not depicted as an evil destroyer (illustrated in circle seven of Dante's 'Inferno'), but a young man observing the world as his, and learning faster than any pupil of any philosopher. In the end, he was searching for companionship, someone to show him how to rule, how to please the people. Alexander, depicted by Pressfield, is a character I have never read about. This is a genuine original piece, rising above Manfridi's 'Alexander Triology' (Best one is book II, 'Sands of Ammon'). Read Pressfield's "The Virtues of War" taste the blood in your mouth, and feel the dynamis (will ro fight) in your heart. Be in the corps, march beside him, fight with him, and share in his glory. After all, you are with the greatest military