Philip and Alexander
- Downloads：9749
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-03 03:41:05
- Update Date：2025-09-23
- Status：finish
- Author：Adrian Goldsworthy
- ISBN：1784978779
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
During his short life Alexander the Great carved out an empire stretching from the Balkans to Central India， re-writing the map of the ancient world。
Yet Alexander represents only half of the story， for his success was not just the product of his own genius， restless energy， and ambition， but was built on decades of effort by his father。 Philip II of Macedon is primarily recognised for being Alexander the Great's father， the old man， one-eyed and limping， whose convenient assassination allowed Alexander the Great to come to power and to embark on his epic campaigns。 But there was far more to his career than this。 Through decades of hard-fighting， clever diplomacy， and sheer personal determination， he unified his country and subjected Greece and many of the lands bordering Macedon。
In this joint biography， Adrian Goldsworthy investigates how during their two lifetimes Philip and Alexander transformed Macedon from an unimportant， weak and barbarous kingdom into an enormous empire covering most of the known world。
Yet Alexander represents only half of the story， for his success was not just the product of his own genius， restless energy， and ambition， but was built on decades of effort by his father。 Philip II of Macedon is primarily recognised for being Alexander the Great's father， the old man， one-eyed and limping， whose convenient assassination allowed Alexander the Great to come to power and to embark on his epic campaigns。 But there was far more to his career than this。 Through decades of hard-fighting， clever diplomacy， and sheer personal determination， he unified his country and subjected Greece and many of the lands bordering Macedon。
In this joint biography， Adrian Goldsworthy investigates how during their two lifetimes Philip and Alexander transformed Macedon from an unimportant， weak and barbarous kingdom into an enormous empire covering most of the known world。
Reviews
Lewis
，
Superb read， learnt a lot more about Alexander。 Found Philip interesting as well
Annarella
，
It was fascinating and informative。 I read it slowly as there was plenty to understand and， even if I assumed I knew something about Alexander， I discovered I just scraped the surface and knew the basic。This is an erudite book， you understand that the author know what he's writing about， and it wasn't always easy as I felt like I was back to university and preparing a history exam。Even if it's erudite it's never dry or boring。 The author is a talented storyteller and always kept my attention。Hig It was fascinating and informative。 I read it slowly as there was plenty to understand and， even if I assumed I knew something about Alexander， I discovered I just scraped the surface and knew the basic。This is an erudite book， you understand that the author know what he's writing about， and it wasn't always easy as I felt like I was back to university and preparing a history exam。Even if it's erudite it's never dry or boring。 The author is a talented storyteller and always kept my attention。Highly recommended。Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC， all opinions are mine 。。。more
Shawn
，
I enjoyed the book， but it wasn't ultimately what I was hoping for。 There is far too much focus on the particulars of battles and military maneuvers。 Of course， that's to be expected in any history of Philip and Alexander。 Especially for Alexander， war and battle make up so much of his life。 Still I would have liked more focus into the individuals， their relationships， and even more so， on the impact they had on those around them and the ancient world。 The book doesn't ignore these， but the spot I enjoyed the book， but it wasn't ultimately what I was hoping for。 There is far too much focus on the particulars of battles and military maneuvers。 Of course， that's to be expected in any history of Philip and Alexander。 Especially for Alexander， war and battle make up so much of his life。 Still I would have liked more focus into the individuals， their relationships， and even more so， on the impact they had on those around them and the ancient world。 The book doesn't ignore these， but the spotlight is more on the battles than the influence/impact。 I found myself drifting in the battle descriptions， but piqued by the descriptions of the various cities and cultures Alexander encountered （and conquered）。 In some ways the focus on Philip in the first part of the book was more interesting: in part maybe because it was more novel， but also because there was more focus on how Philip managed his relationships with the surrounding cities and southern Greece。I appreciated that the author was careful about the claims being made: the sparsity of evidence that supported them and the conflicting interpretations of that evidence。 For those who listen to the book as I did， the reader was excellent。 Good pacing， no distracting mannerisms。 。。。more
Hari
，
The part about Philip is new and quite interesting。 The part about Alexander is not very interesting。 Most of the information was already known by me。 Anyway， it is a very good book。 I learnt a lot about this amazing son and father。 The writing of Goldsworthy is very detailed， clear and scientific。
Craig Chapman
，
Fantastic and gripping read about Philip and Alexander。Highly recommend this book any fans of ancient history
Jerome
，
A solid， accessible and well-written dual biography。If you’re familiar with the subject， you won’t find anything new here， and， in any case， any historian dealing with the ancient world has to work with less than ideal source material， so coming up with fresh ways to look at it is difficult。 Goldsworthy has an excellent grasp of the subject matter， and he does a great job looking at the sources critically without getting bogged down。 The narrative is broad， and he clearly explains the rise of Ma A solid， accessible and well-written dual biography。If you’re familiar with the subject， you won’t find anything new here， and， in any case， any historian dealing with the ancient world has to work with less than ideal source material， so coming up with fresh ways to look at it is difficult。 Goldsworthy has an excellent grasp of the subject matter， and he does a great job looking at the sources critically without getting bogged down。 The narrative is broad， and he clearly explains the rise of Macedon and its culture， and does his best to look at how Philip and Alexander’s campaigns affected the lives of ordinary people。The book is insightful and the narrative flows well。 Goldsworthy does a great job describing what warfare in that era was like， and his account of the campaigns is vivid。 The maps are great。 Goldsworthy tries to emphasize Philip’s importance， but the reader will almost certainly find Alexander’s story to be the more interesting of the two。A rich， enjoyable and comprehensive work。 。。。more
Jeff Clay
，
There are many "The Greats" in history。 According to Wikipedia， some 190+ historical figures， including monarchs， political figures， commanders and generals， and religious leaders have been called "The Great" either during their lifetime or awarded the moniker posthumously。 The majority of people， if asked， would likely be only able to name one "Great。" A small percentage might be able to cough up the two relatively well known Russian Greats， Peter and Catherine， as well as a certain Prussian na There are many "The Greats" in history。 According to Wikipedia， some 190+ historical figures， including monarchs， political figures， commanders and generals， and religious leaders have been called "The Great" either during their lifetime or awarded the moniker posthumously。 The majority of people， if asked， would likely be only able to name one "Great。" A small percentage might be able to cough up the two relatively well known Russian Greats， Peter and Catherine， as well as a certain Prussian named Frederick。 An even smaller fraction might mention Pompey and Alfred， both Greats， but that would be about it。 Of course， Alexander sits resolutely and apparently eternally at the top of the Great heap。 And， unsurprisingly， there is a seemingly endless supply of books about Alexander （though surprising only a handful of movies， including Oliver Stone's much-panned 2004 epic and and the much better received 1956 Richard Burton film）， including serious biographical novels， more fanciful fiction， scholarly studies， legit history books and even children's books。 Then there are the contemporary and near-contemporary accounts by the ancients Arrian and Plutarch （and others）。 So， why do we "need" another book about Alexander the Great？First， it is a Goldsworthy book。 Therefore you know it is going to be accessibly written in a style and using language that is fact-driven， but not dry。 For instance， when supposition is called for -- due to a lack of collaborating historical accounts， for instance -- he will write "probably" or "likely" to indicate the generally direction of his opinion。 Often he will state， "and we will never know the absolute truth of the matter" or something to that effect。 He would likely agree that speculation may be enjoyable but has little place in writing history。 Goldsworthy's ability to marshal all the disparate sources -- ancient and contemporary -- and craft a story （two， really） that is history but reads as tale but without any literary pretenses （à la Barry Strauss） is a true talent。 I have read many of Goldsworthy's books and they all are captivating and engrossing， despite the subject matter being a very great distance from us， both temporally and culturally。But， the other primary reason to read this book is its "first" story: that of Alexander's father， Phillip II。 Fully 40% of the book is Phillip's tale。 Normally -- at least based on my admittedly somewhat cursory previous Alexander readings， the father may get at best the opening chapter。 In Goldworthy's hands， Phillip comes to life as I have never read before。 He is his own man， not just Alexander's pappy。 This is refreshing and gives the book added depth， weight， and perspective。 The subtitle of this book is "Kings and Conquerors" and should be the clue as to its focus: it is first and foremost about the men in their roles as kings and conquerors。 Phillip was a Macedonian king who conquered much of Greece （but not the Peloponnese）， established his primacy over the conquered lands， dreamed of doing the same in Persia but was assassinated before embarking to do so。 Alexander， whilst nominally overload of conquered Greece and his homeland Macedonia， spent his short adult life conquering much of near Asia all the way to India。 The focus is on politics and war， both on the Greek mainland （Phillip） and in Asia （Alexander）。 If you are interested in 4th century BCE Greek culture and everyday life you will need to look elsewhere。Of course Goldsworthy supplies copious readable maps， numerous explanatory notes， a detailed bibliography， and a concise introduction that ably sets the stage for the story that is to follow。 In short， another near-perfect Goldsworthy history。 If you wanted to read just one history of Alexander AND you wanted a comprehensive fore-story about his father Phillip， look no further。 A rock solid 4。5。 。。。more
Hermance
，
Philip and Alexander Kings and Conquerors by Adrian Goldsworthy is a comprehensive work which shed lights on Philip's determining role in his son's military conquests and successes。 Philip and Alexander Kings and Conquerors by Adrian Goldsworthy is a comprehensive work which shed lights on Philip's determining role in his son's military conquests and successes。 。。。more
Simon
，
Yeah， there are plenty of books already， even ones pairing them together。But I like Goldsworthy's writing style and careful approach to the sources， so I'll read it anyway。 Yeah， there are plenty of books already， even ones pairing them together。But I like Goldsworthy's writing style and careful approach to the sources， so I'll read it anyway。 。。。more
Ryan Groesbeck
，
This was great， and I loved that it gave equal （well， more or less） weight to Philip's groundwork as it did to what Alexander achieved based on that groundwork。 Goldsworthy is a great Roman historian， and it's nice to see him expand his horizons here into a different area。 I also particularly enjoyed the way his history was done in an "in the moment" style that made it feel more like you were following along with Alexander rather than being told about something after it had happened。 Good， solid This was great， and I loved that it gave equal （well， more or less） weight to Philip's groundwork as it did to what Alexander achieved based on that groundwork。 Goldsworthy is a great Roman historian， and it's nice to see him expand his horizons here into a different area。 I also particularly enjoyed the way his history was done in an "in the moment" style that made it feel more like you were following along with Alexander rather than being told about something after it had happened。 Good， solid read。 。。。more
Igor
，
Adrian is really a good historian。
Declan Waters
，
As a wargamer I have been interested in the period of Philip & Alexander for some time， and particularly the Macedonians and fighting techniques that Alexander inherited from his father， without which it is difficult to imagine him doing so much， in so short a time。So， this book fits right into my interests and Adrian Goldsworthy does a good job of introducing the people of the time， sifting fact from supposition and informing the reader when there are academic debates about certain details。He s As a wargamer I have been interested in the period of Philip & Alexander for some time， and particularly the Macedonians and fighting techniques that Alexander inherited from his father， without which it is difficult to imagine him doing so much， in so short a time。So， this book fits right into my interests and Adrian Goldsworthy does a good job of introducing the people of the time， sifting fact from supposition and informing the reader when there are academic debates about certain details。He starts with a history of Macedonia up to the reign of Philip including some interesting information about the line of kings that I didn't know and then introduces us to Philip and explains what he did to make Macedonia such a power house in Greek politics of the time。 And this isn't just background to Alexander， Philip is dealt with in some detail in this - much more than previous books I've read。And then Alexander （the Great） and his attack on Persia and conquering of most of the modern world。 Of course with the space available it is impossible to review all the battles in detail （but that's why there are books on these！） but Goldsworthy captures the essential movements of Alexander， his Companions and the Macedonian， Greek and mercenary troops as they embark on an astonishing attack on the most powerful Empire at that time， finally reaching the Indus and India before turning back for home -- a home he never reached。 。。。more
Mac
，
Buy。Why buy？ Well because you should always buy anything by Adrian Goldsworthy and because this a good solid book。 Why four stars？ Four stars because Goldsworthy's account of the life of Philip is a huge addition to the literature。 This is likely the best account of his life yet done， and with no more sources forthcoming， probably the best ever。 When it comes to Alexander， however， I prefer the depth of the Robin Lane Fox masterpiece。 Buy。Why buy？ Well because you should always buy anything by Adrian Goldsworthy and because this a good solid book。 Why four stars？ Four stars because Goldsworthy's account of the life of Philip is a huge addition to the literature。 This is likely the best account of his life yet done， and with no more sources forthcoming， probably the best ever。 When it comes to Alexander， however， I prefer the depth of the Robin Lane Fox masterpiece。 。。。more
Rose Aitken
，
upon the building blocks of the past is based the presentThis is an interesting book。 it’s a bit further back than that period I usually find interesting but then， the present can’t happen if there is no past and if there’s no present there can’t be a future。 Not much is known or can be confirmed and yet， for all that there is so little this book certainly provides a thorough account of Philip and Alexander that gives us the confirmation that， we just can’t help ourselves。 History must repeat it upon the building blocks of the past is based the presentThis is an interesting book。 it’s a bit further back than that period I usually find interesting but then， the present can’t happen if there is no past and if there’s no present there can’t be a future。 Not much is known or can be confirmed and yet， for all that there is so little this book certainly provides a thorough account of Philip and Alexander that gives us the confirmation that， we just can’t help ourselves。 History must repeat itself。 。。。more
Ian Wilson
，
This was enjoyable despite suffering from the expected overflow of battle descriptions。 I felt being told how much was supposition grew a little over tiresome though。
Paul Peters
，
This is really a five-star book but I demoted it because I got lost in the Greek names and places。 It is long but I found it enlightening and interesting。 It always boggles my mind when I learn about the things some ancient peoples accomplished。 In this case， 300-400 BC。 Imagine leading （and feeding） 40，000 men across some 10，000 miles through all kinds of weather， over mountains， and through deserts for five years。 Even though a thousand miles from home they were still able to build bridges acr This is really a five-star book but I demoted it because I got lost in the Greek names and places。 It is long but I found it enlightening and interesting。 It always boggles my mind when I learn about the things some ancient peoples accomplished。 In this case， 300-400 BC。 Imagine leading （and feeding） 40，000 men across some 10，000 miles through all kinds of weather， over mountains， and through deserts for five years。 Even though a thousand miles from home they were still able to build bridges across rivers and build massive siege machines。 Unlike modern generals， Alexander was at the front of his troops。 At one city he scaled the wall first， then the ladders broke and he attacked the defenders by himself。 The others did break down the door and join the battle but Alexander was badly wounded， including a punctured lung， so that the troops initially thought him dead。 He survived， though， as he had multiple times before and continued the march。 And so it goes。While reading this book it occurred to me that aggression， for men anyway， surely is an inherited quality that persists to this day。 。。。more
Jacob Hudgins
，
A very thorough retelling of Philip’s and Alexander’s conquests。 Very accessible for beginners to the study of this era while also offering new information and opinions on disputed details。 Goldsworthy does a good job of helping the reader interpret the various legends and myths surrounding Alexander to get a sense of what probably happened and what he was like。 This is less satisfying than myth but closer to the reality。 I felt that the inclusion of Philip’s work consolidating and expanding Mac A very thorough retelling of Philip’s and Alexander’s conquests。 Very accessible for beginners to the study of this era while also offering new information and opinions on disputed details。 Goldsworthy does a good job of helping the reader interpret the various legends and myths surrounding Alexander to get a sense of what probably happened and what he was like。 This is less satisfying than myth but closer to the reality。 I felt that the inclusion of Philip’s work consolidating and expanding Macedonian power really gave great context for the section on Alexander。 Also thankful that he cited Plutarch’s comment that after conquering Persia and India， Alexander was at “an utter loss what to do with the rest of his life。” What’s the appropriate sequel to conquering the world？ 。。。more
Lennert Willems
，
Alexander de Grote is één van de meest bekende en als gevolg daarvan één van de meest beschreven personen uit de oudheid。 De meeste bronnen stammen uit de Romeinse periode en al eeuwenlang gebruiken historici dus hetzelfde bronnenmateriaal。 Men kan zich dan ook afvragen of een nieuw boek over de Macedonische koning wel nodig is？ Het antwoord op deze vraag wordt eigenlijk al gegeven in de titel。 Hij duidt zowel Alexander als Philippus aan als wereldveroveraars。 De grote vernieuwing is dan ook dat Alexander de Grote is één van de meest bekende en als gevolg daarvan één van de meest beschreven personen uit de oudheid。 De meeste bronnen stammen uit de Romeinse periode en al eeuwenlang gebruiken historici dus hetzelfde bronnenmateriaal。 Men kan zich dan ook afvragen of een nieuw boek over de Macedonische koning wel nodig is？ Het antwoord op deze vraag wordt eigenlijk al gegeven in de titel。 Hij duidt zowel Alexander als Philippus aan als wereldveroveraars。 De grote vernieuwing is dan ook dat Goldsworthy de helft van het boek wijdt aan de regering van Philippus。 Zoals de auteur het mooi stelt in zijn epiloog was er zonder Philippus geen Alexander mogelijk。 Bij zijn aantreden erfde Philippus een zwak en verdeeld koninkrijk。 Bij zijn plotse dood was Macedonië de leidende macht in Griekenland。 Philippus was het brein achter de succesvolle Macedonische oorlogsmachine waar Alexander het Perzische rijk mee onder de voet liep。 Hier ligt dan ook de grootste sterkte van het boek。 Goldsworthy gebruikt Philippus niet als een soort prelude voor het succes van zijn veel bekendere en veel succesvollere zoon。 Hij ziet Philippus als de schepper van de omstandigheden voor de grootse overwinningen van Alexander。 Het tweede deel van het boek， dat handelt over de veldtochten van Alexander， is volgens mij dan ook minder interessant。 Toch brengt Goldsworthy hier ook innovatieve stellingen naar voor。 Zo gaat hij in tegen de dominante tendens dat in een veldslag de Macedonische falanx als een massief blok oprukte。 Als alternatief stelt hij dat ze in verschillende eenheden optrokken。 Ten tweede gaat hij in tegen de tendens in de militaire historiografie om de grote verliezen van levens in de veldslagen die in de bronnen naar voren komen als voor waar aan te nemen。 Volgens Goldworthy stierven er zelfs in de grote veldslagen tegen Darius III reltaief weinig mannen。 Hij spreekt eerder over honderden dan over duizenden。Goldsworthy schrijft in zeer neutrale termen over de veroveringen van Alexander。 Dit komt het sterkst tot uiting in het hoofdstuk "De Terugkeer van de koning" dat handelt over de acties van Alexander en zijn leger na de omkeer aan de Indus。 De traditionele historiografie ziet zijn veldtochten hier vaak als een waar terreurbeleid。 Goldsworthy ziet zijn acties echter als niet uitzonderlijk gewelddadig voor de harde wereld waarin Alexander leefde。Naar het einde van het boek worden de zeer grondige analyses van de veldtochten een beetje langdradig。 Voor sommige mensen zal de focus op de krijgsgeschiedenis naar het einde toe wat saai worden。 Goldsworthy heeft een zeer heldere en toegankelijke schrijfstijl。 Hij verwacht niet dat de lezer een uitgebreide kennis heeft van de Hellenistische periode， maar zijn kenmerkende grondige narratieve analyses maken het boek vooral toegankelijk voor mensen met een grote interesse in antieke oorlogsvoering。 。。。more
Mark Croxford
，
Covers Phillip， Alexander and the immediate aftermath of his death。A comprehensive coverage of the rise of Macedonia and the campaigns of Alexander。Copious bibliography and footnotes。Excellent value as leas than the cost of a cup of coffee for the Kindle edition。
Kgosi
，
This book is about two genocidal/homicidal warlords - Alexander and Philip of Macedon。 For me， it was a book about how scarcity， competitiveness， and 'greed' can rule a society。 It's very odd the focus of ancient leaders。 Modern Leaders as much as we criticize them are focused on growing the pie not taking some from our neighbors。 I don't know if that just how historians write things but it was literally just nobles usurping nobles。If you're like me you'll learn a lot about Philip and his life a This book is about two genocidal/homicidal warlords - Alexander and Philip of Macedon。 For me， it was a book about how scarcity， competitiveness， and 'greed' can rule a society。 It's very odd the focus of ancient leaders。 Modern Leaders as much as we criticize them are focused on growing the pie not taking some from our neighbors。 I don't know if that just how historians write things but it was literally just nobles usurping nobles。If you're like me you'll learn a lot about Philip and his life and the particulars of Alexander's whole journey through Asia。 It's well written。 Not too boring， not the most exciting historical fiction I've read。 。。。more
Richard West
，
Massive， well-researched look at the father （Philip） and son （Alexander {the Great}） who ruled ancient Macedonia and a great deal of the known world at one time。 Philip laid the groundwork with his conquests and Alexander went off after his father's death to conquer just about everywhere - even going as far as India， although that proved to be somewhat of a disaster when all was said and done。While most people have heard of Alexander - after all， you don't get called "The Great" if you don't do Massive， well-researched look at the father （Philip） and son （Alexander {the Great}） who ruled ancient Macedonia and a great deal of the known world at one time。 Philip laid the groundwork with his conquests and Alexander went off after his father's death to conquer just about everywhere - even going as far as India， although that proved to be somewhat of a disaster when all was said and done。While most people have heard of Alexander - after all， you don't get called "The Great" if you don't do anything - his father is lesser known and were it not for Philip， Alexander no doubt would be just another one of those would-be conquering types that never quite made a name for himself。 Calling upon ancient sources and more recent ones， the author calls into question some of the sources as he takes the reader on an exciting tour of the ancient world and leads through the trials and tribulations both father and son faced。So much of our knowledge of that time centers more around the ancient Romans and there's no doubt Julius Caesar is more well-known， but as the author points out， were it not for Alexander in particular， Caesar wouldn't have had anyone to emulate。 And， how many people really realize， before the Romans， there was the Macedonian Empire？ Normally， a book such as this takes about a week to read， but due to snow and ice storms and the attendant power outages， this one took a bit longer。。。。。。it was so cold， you didn't dare take your hands out from underneath the blankets you were wrapped up in to turn the pages， plus no electricity made it doubly hard。 Otherwise， it's a fast-moving， highly interesting and educational piece of literature for anyone interested in learning more about the ancient world。Highly recommended！ 。。。more
Pedro Ceneme
，
The best biography I’ve ever read about a classical figure so far， Mr。 Goldsworthy delivers again in his latest book。 I’ve became a fan of his while reading In the Name of Rome due to his fast-paced writing style and his effective balancing of detail and brevity。 He frequently points to inconsistencies in the original sources， explaining personal， cultural and political motivations for these。 He also takes time going through different modern interpretations of some events。 These two factors enha The best biography I’ve ever read about a classical figure so far， Mr。 Goldsworthy delivers again in his latest book。 I’ve became a fan of his while reading In the Name of Rome due to his fast-paced writing style and his effective balancing of detail and brevity。 He frequently points to inconsistencies in the original sources， explaining personal， cultural and political motivations for these。 He also takes time going through different modern interpretations of some events。 These two factors enhance enormously the complexity of all the occurrences described， adding various shades of gray and uncertainty to the narrative。 The book is supplemented by extensive notes and a vast bibliography for further reference， which are very useful to understand the context in which the events take place。Concerning the text， I fully validate the author decision to depict father and son in the book， since it gives a much fuller account on how Alexander was able to do as much as he did。 Philip made a truly herculean effort （and was very lucky） to catapult Macedon from a second-rate semi-barbarous Greek polis into the political and military leadership of Greece。 Alexander is usually lauded as a military genius， but one can see that the apple didn’t fell that far from the tree。 Philip maneuvered well in court politics to rise to the dynasty leadership and， after that， played skillfully the everchanging political landscape of Greece while consolidating his administration， reforming the military， and rewarding lavishly the nobles。 While not having the legendary status as a general that his son would have， he was a successful military leader and built the military machine that Alexander would use to expand enormously in the next decade。Alexander bio brings relatively less new information to the table， but I’ve found particularly interesting the ever-present discussion on how the sources choose to depict him。 He is always presented with a god-like military acumen and bravery and， in the early period of his rule， seemed a very pious， earnest leader， even if exceedingly ambitious。 Later in his reign， sources are split between a leader that did bad things to consolidate his power and stabilize his conquered realm or someone that was acting out of blind anger and madness。 The truth probably lies in between， but it’s clear that the sources have a bias depending on who was promoting such views among his successors （loyalists or the new dynasties）。 The discussion on Alexander leadership style （leading from the front and with great exposure to danger）， and logistical capability （covering vast areas quickly） also standout in this section。 。。。more
Richard Hessney
，
The author has written many books on Roman history， and this is his first foray into Ancient Greece。 The result is a lengthy account of the lives of Philip II and Alexander of Macedon -- and it is long on interpretation and conjecture， since the primary ancient sources are often lacking in facts or deemed suspect。 Perhaps the main theme is that， as warrior kings heading up a new kind of war machine， they both had no choice but to keep conquering fresh territory and seizing more riches to finance The author has written many books on Roman history， and this is his first foray into Ancient Greece。 The result is a lengthy account of the lives of Philip II and Alexander of Macedon -- and it is long on interpretation and conjecture， since the primary ancient sources are often lacking in facts or deemed suspect。 Perhaps the main theme is that， as warrior kings heading up a new kind of war machine， they both had no choice but to keep conquering fresh territory and seizing more riches to finance ever more wars。I admit this brief review is inadequate， in that I did not finish the book and broke off two-thirds of the way through after Alexander defeated Darius III and burned Persepolis。 That left out the farther eastern campaigns in Bactria， the romance with Roxanna， and the invasion of India， which exhausted his army's will to fight。 But I did skip to the end to see if there were new findings about Alexander's death。 There were none。 It is most likely that he died of natural causes from malaria， typhoid or some other infectious disease。Also interesting is the author's views on the Macedonian royal tombs excavated at Aegae （modern Vergina）。 Goldsworthy does not want to join the majority of scholars in the view that Tomb 2 is indeed Philip's and will only say with certainty that the tomb occupants were close to the royal family。 A museum is now open at the tombs， and it is worth viewing online photos of the burial treasures。My favorite anecdote: when Augustus Caesar visited Alexander's tomb in Egypt， according to the historian Suetonius， he reached out to touch his embalmed body and broke off a piece of his nose！ 。。。more
Kristian
，
Magistrale dubbel biografie van Philippus II en Alexander III （de Grote） van Macedonië！ Het is altijd een genot om een boek van Goldsworthy te lezen！ Mooie analyse van het ruime， niet altijd betrouwbare， bronnenmateriaal。 Dit onderzoek wordt op een meeslepende wijze gepresenteerd en neemt je als het ware mee op Alexanders veroveringstochten。 Ondersteund met een aantal kaarten en illustraties die de tekst verduidelijken。 Klein minpuntje is het ontbreken van een （kleine） verklarende woordenlijst v Magistrale dubbel biografie van Philippus II en Alexander III （de Grote） van Macedonië！ Het is altijd een genot om een boek van Goldsworthy te lezen！ Mooie analyse van het ruime， niet altijd betrouwbare， bronnenmateriaal。 Dit onderzoek wordt op een meeslepende wijze gepresenteerd en neemt je als het ware mee op Alexanders veroveringstochten。 Ondersteund met een aantal kaarten en illustraties die de tekst verduidelijken。 Klein minpuntje is het ontbreken van een （kleine） verklarende woordenlijst voor bijv。 de veelvuldig gebruikte militaire begrippen。 。。。more
Susan Paxton
，
More valuable I think as a close look at Philip， since he's far less better known （and far less knowable） than his son。 The Alexander sections tend to suffer from too much "Alexander fandom，" frankly。 Marred here and there by the usual typos that auto-correct miss。 More valuable I think as a close look at Philip， since he's far less better known （and far less knowable） than his son。 The Alexander sections tend to suffer from too much "Alexander fandom，" frankly。 Marred here and there by the usual typos that auto-correct miss。 。。。more
Geoff Regan
，
Very balanced and fast paced book that doesn't feel like 500+ pages。 Very balanced and fast paced book that doesn't feel like 500+ pages。 。。。more
Tahera
，
Philip saved a weak Macedonia from dismemberment or at the very least domination by external powers， then built up and expanded his kingdom and its power until he in turn dominated not simply his neighbours， but most of Greece。 Thus he created the circumstances that allowed Alexander to hurl himself at the Persian Empire and vanquish it。 Without Philip there could have been no Alexander， atleast not one who conquered so much so quickly， but in a way Philip had done to augment his revenue。Philip Philip saved a weak Macedonia from dismemberment or at the very least domination by external powers， then built up and expanded his kingdom and its power until he in turn dominated not simply his neighbours， but most of Greece。 Thus he created the circumstances that allowed Alexander to hurl himself at the Persian Empire and vanquish it。 Without Philip there could have been no Alexander， atleast not one who conquered so much so quickly， but in a way Philip had done to augment his revenue。Philip II of Macedonia has been shown as an old， one eyed， limping drunkard and womaniser in movies and TV series I have seen depicting the life of Alexander the Great， a man conveniently done away with to pave the way for Alexander to showcase his military prowess and greatness。 What got me excited about this book was the fact that I would finally get to read about Philip and the book did not disappoint。 The book is divided into three parts and although parts 2 and 3 are solely dedicated to Alexander， part 1 that covers Philip's life and death gives us enough information we need to create a picture of a man who with his personal determination， a gift of diplomacy & acute political and military acumen singlehandedly changed Macedonia's fortunes， transforming it from an unimportant， barbarous kingdom into a force to reckon with both military and wealth wise。 The military prowess of Macedonia that Alexander unleashed against the Persian Empire was created from scratch by Philip II。 The wealth of Macedonia that Alexander had at his disposal was accumulated by Philip II。 The campaign against Persia that Alexander fought and won was planned by Philip II。 Philip II， in short， provided the means and tools which allowed Alexander to showcase his own strength， ingenuity and ambitions as a ruler & conqueror。 Alexander achieved immense fame。 Philip made that achievement possible and his own career was remarkable in its own right。 Between them they changed Macedonia， changed Greece， and changed the history of the wider world。And in the end as the author puts it: 'Neither was unambiguously a good man to say the very least， but the title "the great"， if understood as important and not necessarily good， is one that both deserve。'This was one excellent book and I am glad I read it。 It really changed my perspective about Philip II。My thanks to NetGalley， the publishers Perseus Books/ Basic Books and the author for the e-Arc of the book。 。。。more
Shivesh
，
The Great and the GreatestThis tale is incredible in the telling， even more so to realize how much we do not know about this ancient adventure that starts with the father and ended with the son。 Biographies of either man tend to take one side or the other。 Philip taken by himself would easily merit the epithet Megas were it not for begetting a son that would outshine him like the Sun does the Moon。 However， Goldsworthy emphasizes the impossibility of Alexander achieving a fraction of what he did The Great and the GreatestThis tale is incredible in the telling， even more so to realize how much we do not know about this ancient adventure that starts with the father and ended with the son。 Biographies of either man tend to take one side or the other。 Philip taken by himself would easily merit the epithet Megas were it not for begetting a son that would outshine him like the Sun does the Moon。 However， Goldsworthy emphasizes the impossibility of Alexander achieving a fraction of what he did without the decades of groundwork that Philip laid down。 Philip took a loose collection of tribespeople and goat herders and fashioned them into a murder machine built 16 ranks deep – the famous Macedonian phalanx armed with the world-beating long pikes known as sarissas。 They ran over enemy infantry like an ancient tank and no cavalryman could come within a sword length of these soldiers:I have been enamored with Alexander and his world for the better part of a year now， and have started with basic popular biographies but now I find myself delving into source material， and academic papers on esoteric websites。 The studies by Everitt and Freeman mix heavy doses of personality into the military tale and serve well to delve into Alexander’s psychology。 No matter that much of it is necessarily speculative。 Apart from indirect sources such as Plutarch， much of the personalities of both Philip and Alexander are outshone by their accomplishments。 We simply don’t know what they were like， other than extrapolating some insight from their reported actions。There are so many lacunae in the sources， that historians must stitch them together in patchwork formation to ensure that a reasonable narrative can be brought to bear。 A noticeable chunk of this book tackles the incredibly hard practice of historiography。 Goldsworthy is a historian for our time where even our modern “truth” needs copious footnotes – he is not quite trusting his sources， but ably performs an impossible task in working them over his literary anvil to pound out the likely truth of Alexander’s life。 In essence， the most informative extant source that is available to us is originated by Arrian of Nicomedia， writing in the 2nd century AD （five hundred years after Alexander’s flourishing）。 Furthermore， Arrian was deriving his own history from multiple ancient， possibly contemporaneous sources that are sadly lost to us in the modern day。 Imagine sitting down today to write an authoritative biography of King Henry VIII of England but only from sources and memoirs written a hundred years after his death。 I somehow hope that within my lifetime， somewhere in Alexandria an ancient papyrus will be uncovered reveling the unabridged autobiography of Ptolemy – the general who wrote his own eyewitness to the grand campaigns that has been quoted as a major source of sources for us， reading about these events over 2，300 years later。 Ptolemy was right there the whole time， and we are missing his words to read for ourselves; the tragedy！There is more than a hint of discomfort we have as modern readers to glorifying acts that qualify Alexander as a totalitarian ruler – someone who has directed wholesale massacres of civilians， including women and children – a man who has sold entire populations into slavery – a warlord who is responsible for the sacking and burning of two major cities of the world at that time: Thebes and Persepolis。 Imagine all the records and culture lost in those two acts！ It is the equivalent of a 20th century dictator burning down Los Angeles and then for good measure， Paris all in a span of 5 years。 Evidence from source narratives shows numerous grim incidents of executions， rapes， destruction and even the killing of refugees and ambushes of otherwise peaceful hill folks or fisher people that lived a tribal or bronze age agrarian lifestyle。 They probably thought hell itself opened to disgorge this army of murderous Europeans upon their quiet lands。 The brutality that Alexander’s army brought to an unsuspecting populace from Anatolia to the Indus was horrific， undefeated， and all-consuming。 The “retreat” or return from India through a coastal route was sprinkled even further with pillaging and killing of native populations with truly little to give anyway but their lives。 There are a thousand apologias written over the years for Alexander – this is a complicated man to admire by the regular man and for expert historians。 We should take the measure of the man who succeeded for the times he lived in and understand that our fascination with his achievements need not exclude the brutality of his methods。Two incidents are profoundly disquieting， turning this narrative into more of a piercing indictment of Alexander’s descent into a paranoid ruler。 He drunkenly murders one of his oldest friends with his own hands， and later he executes Philotas， a trusted member of his inner circle， and then sends two assassins back along his path of conquest to murder Philotas’ father Parmenion – his oldest and most trusted general。 This was a man whose loyalty was unmatched， who came up under his father Philip II then marched with his son and Philip’s son to the end of the known world。The end of Alexander’s life and the fracturing of his empire is best covered in the superb Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire by James Romm。 The sources improve there， and the stories of Eumenes， Antigonus One-eye and Cassander should be read and studied on their own merits in that book。 In Philip and Alexander: Kings and Conquerors Goldsworthy’s epilogue that follows is clearly a distillation of years-long study and contemplation by a world-class Classical scholar into the intertwining fates and historical judgment on this father-son pair that is likely the most influential such duo in all of recorded history。 This section is worth the entire price of admission by itself。Goldsworthy’s transition between Philip and Alexander， where one ended and the other really begins， are the strongest aspect of this magisterial study。 We already know， but now comprehend how either man could not affix his standard in the firmament of history， without the other。 Their bodies may be now dust and their empires long gone， but their deeds and memories still remain in the world’s mind， these many millennia later。 They both got what they wanted most of all: glory and fame without end。 。。。more
David Brown
，
Really enjoyed this book a solid account of the lives of Philip and Alecander with an understandable emphasise of the military campaigns of the two men
Nicole-Rose
，
This one's definitely worth it。I usually like to specify if a given history book is a good gateway text or a more advanced one， but I can't really say with Goldsworthy's Philip and Alexander。 For readers that are already used to dense history texts， then I would say this would be a good start to the subject。 For someone that usually reads fiction and is used to 'well-rounded' characters， perhaps start with a classical figure that is complemented by a wider breadth of sources。I liked that the This one's definitely worth it。I usually like to specify if a given history book is a good gateway text or a more advanced one， but I can't really say with Goldsworthy's Philip and Alexander。 For readers that are already used to dense history texts， then I would say this would be a good start to the subject。 For someone that usually reads fiction and is used to 'well-rounded' characters， perhaps start with a classical figure that is complemented by a wider breadth of sources。I liked that the author did include some of the probably-fictitious stories about both rulers （my favourite being the meeting between Alexander and Bucephalus）， while also prefacing the story with a caveat that it was probably conjured up， or at least exaggerated， by some bystander or anachronistic storyteller。 Even knowing the weak validity of the stories， they're still worth enjoying。 Also， for the reviewers that are complaining that this book is too much of a military history and not enough about the personal lives of Philip and Alexander。。。 I don't think you understand how sources work。I enjoyed every minute of this one。 And there were a lot of them。 。。。more
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Philip and Alexander
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Philip and Alexander&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft
The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Philip and Alexander&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0