What do you think?
Rate this book
Alexander of Macedon
In a breathless tale of the extraordinary Alexander the Great, a master storyteller recreates the high drama which was this infamous demi-god's life. Here is the handsome young prince who chose books over the beautiful young women and men sent to tempt him; the youthful conqueror who ordered bloody massacres but grew sick with self-loathing afterward; the brilliant general who battled his way into the unknown to learn the mysteries of life; the ascetic who brought his people richness and luxury beyond their wildest dreams; the despot who, in a dozen years, altered the entire thrust of history; the heir to a kingdom no mortal had ever before dared to claim
403 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
19 people are currently reading
428 people want to read
About the author
Harold Lamb
133 books162 followersHarold Albert Lamb was an American historian, screenwriter, short story writer, and novelist.
Born in Alpine, New Jersey, he attended Columbia University, where his interest in the peoples and history of Asia began. Lamb built a career with his writing from an early age. He got his start in the pulp magazines, quickly moving to the prestigious Adventure magazine, his primary fiction outlet for nineteen years. In 1927 he wrote a biography of Genghis Khan, and following on its success turned more and more to the writing of non-fiction, penning numerous biographies and popular history books until his death in 1962. The success of Lamb's two volume history of the Crusades led to his discovery by Cecil B. DeMille, who employed Lamb as a technical advisor on a related movie, The Crusades, and used him as a screenwriter on many other DeMille movies thereafter. Lamb spoke French, Latin, Persian, and Arabic, and, by his own account, a smattering of Manchu-Tartar.
From Wikipedia
Born in Alpine, New Jersey, he attended Columbia University, where his interest in the peoples and history of Asia began. Lamb built a career with his writing from an early age. He got his start in the pulp magazines, quickly moving to the prestigious Adventure magazine, his primary fiction outlet for nineteen years. In 1927 he wrote a biography of Genghis Khan, and following on its success turned more and more to the writing of non-fiction, penning numerous biographies and popular history books until his death in 1962. The success of Lamb's two volume history of the Crusades led to his discovery by Cecil B. DeMille, who employed Lamb as a technical advisor on a related movie, The Crusades, and used him as a screenwriter on many other DeMille movies thereafter. Lamb spoke French, Latin, Persian, and Arabic, and, by his own account, a smattering of Manchu-Tartar.
From Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
July 4, 2024
نه تاریخ بود که به لحاظ قابل استناد بودن با علاقه دنبالش کنی و نه افسانه که داستان پخته و جذابی داشته باشه ، خیلییی شرح جنگهای گنگ و حوصله سر بر داشت ، چیزی که بیشتر از همه برای من آزار دهنده بود این بود که اولا از احوال و عواطف مردم اون روزگار چیزی دستگیر آدم نمیشد ، و در ثانی سعی داشت چهره اسکندر مقدونی رو در حد کوروش کبیر محترم کنه و در حین حال اطلاعات زیادی هم درباره اش به خواننده داده نمیشد ،
November 17, 2024
کتاب خوبی بود اما مطالبش بهروز و علمی نبود.
November 13, 2014
In the context of my elementary and high school education, Alexander the Great was the discussion of a day or two, sandwiched between the classical Greek civilization and the legions of Rome, and so it's a shock to see Lamb's meticulous treatment of a conqueror and learned man who managed to transform both Western and Eastern civilization during his short life.
He established no government, imposed no lifestyle, and did not found a dynasty, yet sculpted history for a thousand years afterward. He cleared the path for trade, encouraged migration and intermingling of populations, forced regional spiritual systems to interact and consider a much larger world than Greek thought allowed, sparked outrageous and seemingly worldwide legends of his life, and frankly cleared the slate of old and preexisting empires in his path from Greece to near India, for other men to found new dynasties in a mixed Greek and local style.
Like Lamb's Omar Khayyam, Alexander is an enigmatic figure who never seemed to play the game that everyone thought he was playing. He was a conqueror whose best conquests were won and kept without the use of weapons, a leader with no interest in government beyond something that was either airily theoretical or completely practical but in any case didn't actually exist, and an inspired general with a goal of seeing the ends of the Earth. His whole use of his army was as a vehicle in search of an elusive, distant truth.
It frequently pulls back into high level narration of the social dynamics at play. These are fascinating pieces, although it rips through the immediacy of the story, detailing reasons why things are so, whether it be the economic ramifications of Greece's professional soldiery or of the introduction of a coin economy.
He established no government, imposed no lifestyle, and did not found a dynasty, yet sculpted history for a thousand years afterward. He cleared the path for trade, encouraged migration and intermingling of populations, forced regional spiritual systems to interact and consider a much larger world than Greek thought allowed, sparked outrageous and seemingly worldwide legends of his life, and frankly cleared the slate of old and preexisting empires in his path from Greece to near India, for other men to found new dynasties in a mixed Greek and local style.
Like Lamb's Omar Khayyam, Alexander is an enigmatic figure who never seemed to play the game that everyone thought he was playing. He was a conqueror whose best conquests were won and kept without the use of weapons, a leader with no interest in government beyond something that was either airily theoretical or completely practical but in any case didn't actually exist, and an inspired general with a goal of seeing the ends of the Earth. His whole use of his army was as a vehicle in search of an elusive, distant truth.
It frequently pulls back into high level narration of the social dynamics at play. These are fascinating pieces, although it rips through the immediacy of the story, detailing reasons why things are so, whether it be the economic ramifications of Greece's professional soldiery or of the introduction of a coin economy.
November 12, 2015
Alexander the Great remains a blind spot in my ancient history which is frustrating as he's always been mentioned in terms of others but I'm having a hard time find a good book about him. This was top of a list that is available on Audio so I gave it a shot. Unfortunately it's the worst type of history - one that reads as a novel. There are lots of "stared angrily" and things the author couldn't possibly know so is clearly fiction. Having established this I had zero faith in anything that was stated in the book. I'd need to corroborate with another source before I'd dare mention anything learned from reading this for fear of looking a fool.
Oddly, the best part of the book is in the final chapters following Alexander's death. There I have some confidence in the discussion as the author focuses on Alexander's legacy. I found the various legends surrounding him quite interesting.
The narration isn't great either with that antiquated overly english authoritarian style that chews on vowels. But the underlying problem is the blending of fact and fiction with no indication of which is which.
Oddly, the best part of the book is in the final chapters following Alexander's death. There I have some confidence in the discussion as the author focuses on Alexander's legacy. I found the various legends surrounding him quite interesting.
The narration isn't great either with that antiquated overly english authoritarian style that chews on vowels. But the underlying problem is the blending of fact and fiction with no indication of which is which.
June 19, 2008
I decided to read another biography of Alexander to get a different perspective from Renault's. I had bought Harold Lamb's "Alexander of Macedon" on Ebay so I got it out and started reading it. Talk about a total flip-flop. Harold Lamb makes Alexander sound like a frightened kid that just seemed to do things right by accident. His cavalry charge at Chaeronea was portrayed as just a result of Alexander being so anxious he spurred his horse because he couldn't take the tension any more. According to Lamb, Alexander really didn't want to complete his father's dream of conquering Persia. He just wanted to be a bookworm. I'm going to stick to it and finish it but I much prefer Mary Renault's (and Jennifer's!!!) version based on the account by Arrianus. Lamb may have relied much more on Curtius Rufus who was educated at Plato's academy in Athens after it was financially dominated by Cassander, the son of the Macedonian regent Antipater, who was suspected of possibly poisoning Alexander, and who was responsible for the murder of Alexander's wife Roxanne and their son as well as Alexander's mother, Olympias and possibly even the execution of Alexander's first wife Barsine and her son. I would be much more suspicious of Rufus' account for this reason.
November 18, 2025
"As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power. The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven."
-Daniel 8:5-8
Around 200 years before Alexander the Great was born, the prophet Daniel foresaw his accomplishments. Like the violent goat in the vision, Alexander came from the west and conquered the two horns of Medo-Persia. While the Bible mentions a king named Darius, there was more than one Darius in history. The king of Persia at the time of Alexander was probably Darius III. Before the reign of Alexander's father Philip II, people in the Greek city-states looked down on the backward Macedonians of the northern hills. Then Philip raised an army like they had never seen and became a threat to their autonomy. Chief of all his opponents was the great orator Demosthenes, who valued republican principles and warned the citizens of Athens against the danger of unification with Macedon.
Philip's conquests began merging these city states into the Hellenistic League. At the battle of Chaeronea, he defeated the combined forces of Thebes and Athens. It is unknown how much his son Alexander actually fought in the battle, but he nevertheless received the loyalty of the army. Before Philip could finish his conquests, he was assassinated. Rumors of a conspiracy spread. Many believed Alexander may have orchestrated his father's death. Others believed that his controlling mother Olympias could have plotted against her husband after he took another wife. Olympias was an ambitious woman who was said to sleep with snakes in her bed.
Alexander finished the work of his father by suppressing rebellions and after destroying the city of Thebes, he sold its people into slavery. Yet he had a way acquiring the loyalty of fighting men, whether by fear or by charm. While he did not write down his battle tactics for us to read, his main strategy seemed to be taking big risks that could have big payoffs. Much of the military strategy was a product of his generals and the army that Philip had created. The Macedonians had developed 18-foot pikes and tight formations known as the phalanx. They had engineers who devised ways to fling heavy objects at great distances. These devices could be disassembled and carried through mountain passes.
Instead of becoming a dictator, Alexander tried to imitate the great Cyrus of Persia. He gave the Greeks a large amount of freedom in exchange for their loyalty. But rather than staying to rule his new empire, he grew tired of merely listening to the philosophies of his tutor Aristotle and made bigger plans. A score still had to be settled with Persia, and gradually the idea of merging the entire world into one empire entered his mind. But just how big was this world?
The campaign against the Persians began in 334 BC with the crossing of the Hellespont into Asia Minor. After defeating a mixed Persian army at the River Granicus, he proceeded east to Issus where the coast turned south toward Israel. The army of Darius pinned the Macedonians against the coast, but it scattered after Darius deserted his troops. Travelling south, the Macedonians built a land bridge to besiege the island fortress of Tyre. Then they went down into Egypt, where a city was built that bore Alexander's name (and eventually boasted a massive library). The Egyptians declared him to be their pharaoh and their god.
Returning to the east, the Macedonians met the army of Darius at the battle of Gaugamela, where he again fled the battlefield with his troops behind him. This allowed Alexander to enter the Persian cities of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis- the last of which he burned to the ground. Darius then fled to Ecbatana, where he was murdered by his own men. After killing a usurper to the Persian throne, Alexander was by default the king of Macedonia, Greece, Egypt and Persia.
A pattern began to develop that would continue to the end of his life: Alexander would conquer a region, build Greek-style cities, leave part of his men behind, and move on. Eventually his army became less Greek and more Asian. To the Greek religious beliefs were added Persian beliefs. Alexander insisted on deciding every local court case himself and had trouble delegating authority. When he left one place, order tended to collapse behind him. The army adapted to new environments and took on new Eastern tactics. Veterans were left behind and replace with young Persian soldiers.
From Persia the Macedonians headed east around the bottom of the Caspian Sea. They began to wonder if their Greek mythology was wrong about the size of the earth. They had always believed there were mountain ranges to the east where the gods lived, and they had to find them. As the Macedonians made their way northeast through the Khyber Pass they kept building more Alexandrias. One of these Alexandrias became Kandahar, Afghanistan. They encountered great horse archers of the Parthian and Bactrian empires. They saw the largest mountains they had ever seen: the mountains known to us as the Himalayas (but there were no gods living there). Leaving a garrison at Samarkand, they crossed the River of the Sands, fought the Scythian army, and besieged the fortress at Sogdiana.
It was at Sogdiana that Alexander took a wife. The fort had high walls that seemed impregnable. A competition with prize money was held to see which of the soldiers could scale the walls the fastest. When climbers made it to the top by using iron tent pegs and ropes, they managed to take the city. A local woman named Roxana came through the door, and Alexander took her as his wife. Whether she was happy is hard to know. She was not the first women he had loved with and she would not be the last. Some modern historians speculate that Alexander was gay. This is a possibility since Greek sexuality was a messy business. Yet it is safe to say that he was more interested in exploration and conquest than sex. Gradually, his lifestyle and responsibilities began to take a toll on his mind. He loved to drink and would sleep late. When a disagreement arose with his companions and generals, he had several of them murdered. The army by then looked nothing like it had at the beginning, and he gradually lost the loyalty of his men.
There was another empire that had yet to be discovered: the empire across the great Indus river. Envoys of friendship were sent by the rajah of Northern India, and the wonders the Macedonians saw before them rivaled even the Persian empire. Most of them had never seen elephants before, and they began hunting and collecting them. After discovering that the enemies of these Indians were the Paurava tribe, another major battle was waged on the Jhelum River against the Pauravan army mounted on elephants. The phalanx barely managed to survive. During the battle, Alexander’s favorite horse Bucephalus was killed beneath him.
It was after this battle that his men mutinied. Ten years of constant conquest was too much. At home, Macedonian society was falling apart, and cities they had already conquered were rebelling again. While Alexander allowed anyone who wanted to leave to do so, it was not enough. They finally persuaded him to end his conquests and head home. But their leader didn't know what to do with himself at this point- everything so far had been a constant thrill of new exploration. On the way back to Babylon, his closest friend Hephastian died, and he grieved deeply. One group of men was sent down the Indus River to the Indian Ocean, and another group marched on land up the coast. An invasion of Arabia was planned, but it never came to pass. The bouts of drinking continued, and one day Alexander went for a swim. Somewhere in the process he contracted what is believed to be malaria and died. The prophecies in the book of Daniel continued to be fulfilled. No plan had been made for Alexander's successor, and there was conflict between 4 of his generals: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Cassander. These four horns and their dynasties divided up his empire for themselves.
The results of his exploits were around 20 cities built and multiple cities named after him. The once separate European and Asian societies merged into a massive Eurasian society larger than the world had never seen. Even when the Roman Empire tried to conquer the East, they had several failed attempts- one of those was the Battle of Carrhae. It took centuries for anyone to match Alexander's conquests. Yet despite conquering the known world, he could not conquer himself. No matter how much was achieved, he had only wanted more. He came from the west and crossed the whole earth without settling down, going home, or as the book of Daniel put it: "touching the ground."
-Daniel 8:5-8
Around 200 years before Alexander the Great was born, the prophet Daniel foresaw his accomplishments. Like the violent goat in the vision, Alexander came from the west and conquered the two horns of Medo-Persia. While the Bible mentions a king named Darius, there was more than one Darius in history. The king of Persia at the time of Alexander was probably Darius III. Before the reign of Alexander's father Philip II, people in the Greek city-states looked down on the backward Macedonians of the northern hills. Then Philip raised an army like they had never seen and became a threat to their autonomy. Chief of all his opponents was the great orator Demosthenes, who valued republican principles and warned the citizens of Athens against the danger of unification with Macedon.
Philip's conquests began merging these city states into the Hellenistic League. At the battle of Chaeronea, he defeated the combined forces of Thebes and Athens. It is unknown how much his son Alexander actually fought in the battle, but he nevertheless received the loyalty of the army. Before Philip could finish his conquests, he was assassinated. Rumors of a conspiracy spread. Many believed Alexander may have orchestrated his father's death. Others believed that his controlling mother Olympias could have plotted against her husband after he took another wife. Olympias was an ambitious woman who was said to sleep with snakes in her bed.
Alexander finished the work of his father by suppressing rebellions and after destroying the city of Thebes, he sold its people into slavery. Yet he had a way acquiring the loyalty of fighting men, whether by fear or by charm. While he did not write down his battle tactics for us to read, his main strategy seemed to be taking big risks that could have big payoffs. Much of the military strategy was a product of his generals and the army that Philip had created. The Macedonians had developed 18-foot pikes and tight formations known as the phalanx. They had engineers who devised ways to fling heavy objects at great distances. These devices could be disassembled and carried through mountain passes.
Instead of becoming a dictator, Alexander tried to imitate the great Cyrus of Persia. He gave the Greeks a large amount of freedom in exchange for their loyalty. But rather than staying to rule his new empire, he grew tired of merely listening to the philosophies of his tutor Aristotle and made bigger plans. A score still had to be settled with Persia, and gradually the idea of merging the entire world into one empire entered his mind. But just how big was this world?
The campaign against the Persians began in 334 BC with the crossing of the Hellespont into Asia Minor. After defeating a mixed Persian army at the River Granicus, he proceeded east to Issus where the coast turned south toward Israel. The army of Darius pinned the Macedonians against the coast, but it scattered after Darius deserted his troops. Travelling south, the Macedonians built a land bridge to besiege the island fortress of Tyre. Then they went down into Egypt, where a city was built that bore Alexander's name (and eventually boasted a massive library). The Egyptians declared him to be their pharaoh and their god.
Returning to the east, the Macedonians met the army of Darius at the battle of Gaugamela, where he again fled the battlefield with his troops behind him. This allowed Alexander to enter the Persian cities of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis- the last of which he burned to the ground. Darius then fled to Ecbatana, where he was murdered by his own men. After killing a usurper to the Persian throne, Alexander was by default the king of Macedonia, Greece, Egypt and Persia.
A pattern began to develop that would continue to the end of his life: Alexander would conquer a region, build Greek-style cities, leave part of his men behind, and move on. Eventually his army became less Greek and more Asian. To the Greek religious beliefs were added Persian beliefs. Alexander insisted on deciding every local court case himself and had trouble delegating authority. When he left one place, order tended to collapse behind him. The army adapted to new environments and took on new Eastern tactics. Veterans were left behind and replace with young Persian soldiers.
From Persia the Macedonians headed east around the bottom of the Caspian Sea. They began to wonder if their Greek mythology was wrong about the size of the earth. They had always believed there were mountain ranges to the east where the gods lived, and they had to find them. As the Macedonians made their way northeast through the Khyber Pass they kept building more Alexandrias. One of these Alexandrias became Kandahar, Afghanistan. They encountered great horse archers of the Parthian and Bactrian empires. They saw the largest mountains they had ever seen: the mountains known to us as the Himalayas (but there were no gods living there). Leaving a garrison at Samarkand, they crossed the River of the Sands, fought the Scythian army, and besieged the fortress at Sogdiana.
It was at Sogdiana that Alexander took a wife. The fort had high walls that seemed impregnable. A competition with prize money was held to see which of the soldiers could scale the walls the fastest. When climbers made it to the top by using iron tent pegs and ropes, they managed to take the city. A local woman named Roxana came through the door, and Alexander took her as his wife. Whether she was happy is hard to know. She was not the first women he had loved with and she would not be the last. Some modern historians speculate that Alexander was gay. This is a possibility since Greek sexuality was a messy business. Yet it is safe to say that he was more interested in exploration and conquest than sex. Gradually, his lifestyle and responsibilities began to take a toll on his mind. He loved to drink and would sleep late. When a disagreement arose with his companions and generals, he had several of them murdered. The army by then looked nothing like it had at the beginning, and he gradually lost the loyalty of his men.
There was another empire that had yet to be discovered: the empire across the great Indus river. Envoys of friendship were sent by the rajah of Northern India, and the wonders the Macedonians saw before them rivaled even the Persian empire. Most of them had never seen elephants before, and they began hunting and collecting them. After discovering that the enemies of these Indians were the Paurava tribe, another major battle was waged on the Jhelum River against the Pauravan army mounted on elephants. The phalanx barely managed to survive. During the battle, Alexander’s favorite horse Bucephalus was killed beneath him.
It was after this battle that his men mutinied. Ten years of constant conquest was too much. At home, Macedonian society was falling apart, and cities they had already conquered were rebelling again. While Alexander allowed anyone who wanted to leave to do so, it was not enough. They finally persuaded him to end his conquests and head home. But their leader didn't know what to do with himself at this point- everything so far had been a constant thrill of new exploration. On the way back to Babylon, his closest friend Hephastian died, and he grieved deeply. One group of men was sent down the Indus River to the Indian Ocean, and another group marched on land up the coast. An invasion of Arabia was planned, but it never came to pass. The bouts of drinking continued, and one day Alexander went for a swim. Somewhere in the process he contracted what is believed to be malaria and died. The prophecies in the book of Daniel continued to be fulfilled. No plan had been made for Alexander's successor, and there was conflict between 4 of his generals: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Cassander. These four horns and their dynasties divided up his empire for themselves.
The results of his exploits were around 20 cities built and multiple cities named after him. The once separate European and Asian societies merged into a massive Eurasian society larger than the world had never seen. Even when the Roman Empire tried to conquer the East, they had several failed attempts- one of those was the Battle of Carrhae. It took centuries for anyone to match Alexander's conquests. Yet despite conquering the known world, he could not conquer himself. No matter how much was achieved, he had only wanted more. He came from the west and crossed the whole earth without settling down, going home, or as the book of Daniel put it: "touching the ground."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 10, 2013
I wanted to learn about Alexander, especially about his aptitude as a general. This book did not really address his military ability. It actually left me more interested in his father, Philip. Although the book did not contain everything I wanted, or hoped to learn, most of it was interesting. Although it seemed slow at the time, all the detail about his childhood was fascinating. But it did make me wonder how so much could be know about his childhood compared to the little that remains about his roles in battles. Or perhaps I chose an author he focused less on his military accomplishment.
This is the only biography of Alexander I have read, so I can't really recommend it. I have to find out if other biographies have more of the detail I am looking for.
I am left thinking that the only reason he is considered a great general is because of the territory he conquered. He faced an enemy, Darius, who was a coward. He stormed cities who opened their gates to welcome him. He accomplished much, but why is he considered a great general?
This is the only biography of Alexander I have read, so I can't really recommend it. I have to find out if other biographies have more of the detail I am looking for.
I am left thinking that the only reason he is considered a great general is because of the territory he conquered. He faced an enemy, Darius, who was a coward. He stormed cities who opened their gates to welcome him. He accomplished much, but why is he considered a great general?
April 16, 2007
Incomparable historian Harold Lamb does it again with the most authoritative book yet on Alexander.
The enigma of Alexander the Great has remained with us for 2,300 years. In spite of the best efforts of historians, Alexander is no less a mystery to us now than he probably was during his own lifetime. There was no one like him before or since. In the pages of Harold Lamb's intriguing Alexander of Macedon, we find some of the answers to the great riddle of his character. Lamb, author of the magnificent Hannibal: One Man Against Rome, has once more pushed the envelope of historical writing to give us a glimpse of what Alexander might really have been like. Using as his principle source material the Anabasis of Alexander by Arrian, Lamb has cobbled together not only a straightforward retelling of the exciting adventures of the Macedonian, but he has also deftly reconstructed those hidden events of which history is silent.
The enigma of Alexander the Great has remained with us for 2,300 years. In spite of the best efforts of historians, Alexander is no less a mystery to us now than he probably was during his own lifetime. There was no one like him before or since. In the pages of Harold Lamb's intriguing Alexander of Macedon, we find some of the answers to the great riddle of his character. Lamb, author of the magnificent Hannibal: One Man Against Rome, has once more pushed the envelope of historical writing to give us a glimpse of what Alexander might really have been like. Using as his principle source material the Anabasis of Alexander by Arrian, Lamb has cobbled together not only a straightforward retelling of the exciting adventures of the Macedonian, but he has also deftly reconstructed those hidden events of which history is silent.
January 6, 2010
A long, but engaging book on Alexander the Great. The author actually (supposedly) traced his very steps as he sought out sources from which to write an accurate historical account of Alexander's life. The book reads a lot like a novel, which is on purpose. This does not detract from the fact that it is a history book as well. As my interest in Biblical history increases, I am thankful for works such as this, which bring the sometimes inaccessible history of the ancient world into easy grasp and comprehension.
May 10, 2015
Wow Wow and Wow this is a must read; even though I think highly of Alexander the Great I was still highly impressed. Harold Lamb tells a story that makes you want to read and keep on reading, you know he writes truth because he gets his facts from such documents as the Anabasis of Alexander. More than 2300 years have passed since Alexander the Greats' life and he is and will always remain GREAT. Maybe Harold Lamb can shed some light on the character on this great man; what do you think?? I recommend this book most highly
Read
November 16, 2009The best glimpse into the ancient mind I've read. A fascinating story, made real by the wealth of first hand historical documents during his life. Did you know he was a scholar at heart, that his travels/conquests were in large part driven by a desire to go beyond the bounds of human habitation to see if there was really evidence for a land of the gods?
May 17, 2009
Probably three and a half stars from me. Not as good as Hannibal but consistently readable and enjoyable.
October 9, 2015
its alright..listended on audible..narrator was terrible.
December 28, 2019
Harold Lamb életre kelti Nagy Sándor életét. A könyv történelmi igényességű regény, de a történet (a valóság!) annyira színes, hogy egy grandiózus fantasy könyvhöz tudnám hasonlítani, emiatt nagyon is élvezetes volt olvasni.
A könyvben végigkövetjük Alexandros életét gyermekkorától világhódító hadjárataiig. A könyv olvasása után sokkal jobban értem hogyan sikerülhetett Sándornak mindaz, amit véghez vitt. Kiváló alapokra építkezhetett, amihez feltehetőleg társultak álmai és nagyszabású víziója a világról. A könyvben sokszor szerepel, hogy mit gondolt vagy tervezett Alexandros, mit miért tett. Ezeket érdemes megfelelő fenntartásokkal venni (az író sem tagadja ezt persze), hiszen a saját életünkben sem tudjuk feltétlenül megindokolni a saját motivációinkat utólag, nem hogy 2000+ év távlatából egy egészen más emberről lehetnének ilyen gondolataink.
A könyv emellett, a makedónok és görögök helyét is sokkal jobban helyretette a világban, bár ezt már néhány Róma történelméről szóló könyv és podcast is megtette részemre korábban. Nyugati centrikus gondolkodásunkban hajlamosak vagyunk azt hinni (én legalábbis sokáig éltem ilyen tévedésekben), hogy mindig is Európa volt a világ vezető, fejlett hatalma. Alexandros hódításai jól beleillenek ebbe a képbe, pedig a valóságtól nagyon messze van ez a fajta értelmezése a makedón terjeszkedésnek. A keleti világállam szerkezete, gondolkodásmódja, eszmerendszere legalább annyira (ha nem jobban) hatott a hódítókra, mint a hódítok gondolatvilága a meghódítottakra. Plusz, a térképek hazudnak és nem érdemes hinni nekik. Az hogy átszínezzük és, ami eddig Darius Birodalma volt, mától makedón, a valóságban ennél sokkal komplexebb módon zajlott, gyakorlatban az uralkodói osztály lecserélése és némi kolonizálás történt, meghódított és hódító egyaránt átalakult és kettejük összeolvasásából jött létre a hellenisztikus világ. Ez az, amit a könyv adott nekem és amitől úgy gondolom kicsit jobban értem ezt a korszakot.
Összességében, egy olvasmányos, grandiózus történet, ami hihetetlen, hogy igaz és nem pedig csak kitaláció, már ezért is megéri elolvasni, ha pedig kicsit is érdekel a történelem ez egy nagyon jó olvasmány lesz számodra.
A könyvben végigkövetjük Alexandros életét gyermekkorától világhódító hadjárataiig. A könyv olvasása után sokkal jobban értem hogyan sikerülhetett Sándornak mindaz, amit véghez vitt. Kiváló alapokra építkezhetett, amihez feltehetőleg társultak álmai és nagyszabású víziója a világról. A könyvben sokszor szerepel, hogy mit gondolt vagy tervezett Alexandros, mit miért tett. Ezeket érdemes megfelelő fenntartásokkal venni (az író sem tagadja ezt persze), hiszen a saját életünkben sem tudjuk feltétlenül megindokolni a saját motivációinkat utólag, nem hogy 2000+ év távlatából egy egészen más emberről lehetnének ilyen gondolataink.
A könyv emellett, a makedónok és görögök helyét is sokkal jobban helyretette a világban, bár ezt már néhány Róma történelméről szóló könyv és podcast is megtette részemre korábban. Nyugati centrikus gondolkodásunkban hajlamosak vagyunk azt hinni (én legalábbis sokáig éltem ilyen tévedésekben), hogy mindig is Európa volt a világ vezető, fejlett hatalma. Alexandros hódításai jól beleillenek ebbe a képbe, pedig a valóságtól nagyon messze van ez a fajta értelmezése a makedón terjeszkedésnek. A keleti világállam szerkezete, gondolkodásmódja, eszmerendszere legalább annyira (ha nem jobban) hatott a hódítókra, mint a hódítok gondolatvilága a meghódítottakra. Plusz, a térképek hazudnak és nem érdemes hinni nekik. Az hogy átszínezzük és, ami eddig Darius Birodalma volt, mától makedón, a valóságban ennél sokkal komplexebb módon zajlott, gyakorlatban az uralkodói osztály lecserélése és némi kolonizálás történt, meghódított és hódító egyaránt átalakult és kettejük összeolvasásából jött létre a hellenisztikus világ. Ez az, amit a könyv adott nekem és amitől úgy gondolom kicsit jobban értem ezt a korszakot.
Összességében, egy olvasmányos, grandiózus történet, ami hihetetlen, hogy igaz és nem pedig csak kitaláció, már ezért is megéri elolvasni, ha pedig kicsit is érdekel a történelem ez egy nagyon jó olvasmány lesz számodra.
July 22, 2020
He is called the great, for he was a majestic monarch christened by so many nations, and not one alone. Egyptians said he was a descendant from their last Pharaoh:Nactanebus,Iranian called him the last of royal line of Kurush, and from there he appeared to be related to House of David in Israeli versions, Arabs adopted him saying he was Iskander dhulcarnem and Greeks called him son of Zeus or Philip, Armenian and Syrian also took over to make wonderous tales about him and even Byzantine hailed him as a hero king of their own.
He is called The great, for he conquered so much in a short time. But here too he was more than that. He was called a student sharing Aristotle's knowledge and interests,A majestic brute whose head was filled with lust for power, a divine spirit meant to achieve great things, a God figure, an ideal leader and a military commander with unparallel abilities, a force who united many nations and was himself an epoch, a fortunate gambler and melancholic drinker, a megalomanic, an explorer and even a madman.
Despite everything, every name and every story that i hear, He appeared to me just a boy, who studied and worked hard alone at Meiza because no other boys shared his thirst for knowledge, always fearful of failing and with a feeling that Aristotle might think of him as stupid. A boy trying to untangle the mysteries of world at day and slept with his Illiad at night, dreaming about Achilles or sometimes Herculus, trying to trace their footsteps. A boy who took his geniusness with him to battle fields and never forgot his curiosities of what lay beyoing the known habitable world(Oikoumene) and also of an immovable mover that over-powers everything divine. A boy in search of his own parnassus. And Somewhere along the path his nervousness disappeared, replaced by conviction, taking risks and gambling his resources and was fortunate enough to never be defeated. He died young with his dreams and aimed-dominion half-completed. And we are left to think that would he have completed it and what would have come after that?
He is called The great, for he conquered so much in a short time. But here too he was more than that. He was called a student sharing Aristotle's knowledge and interests,A majestic brute whose head was filled with lust for power, a divine spirit meant to achieve great things, a God figure, an ideal leader and a military commander with unparallel abilities, a force who united many nations and was himself an epoch, a fortunate gambler and melancholic drinker, a megalomanic, an explorer and even a madman.
Despite everything, every name and every story that i hear, He appeared to me just a boy, who studied and worked hard alone at Meiza because no other boys shared his thirst for knowledge, always fearful of failing and with a feeling that Aristotle might think of him as stupid. A boy trying to untangle the mysteries of world at day and slept with his Illiad at night, dreaming about Achilles or sometimes Herculus, trying to trace their footsteps. A boy who took his geniusness with him to battle fields and never forgot his curiosities of what lay beyoing the known habitable world(Oikoumene) and also of an immovable mover that over-powers everything divine. A boy in search of his own parnassus. And Somewhere along the path his nervousness disappeared, replaced by conviction, taking risks and gambling his resources and was fortunate enough to never be defeated. He died young with his dreams and aimed-dominion half-completed. And we are left to think that would he have completed it and what would have come after that?
April 4, 2020
By reading this book i just more come to believe that wealth and true education makes a normal guy as great as alexander! It was really interesting to me, understanding this huge ancient legend has had his own weaknesses too, although all among the history we are studying his great battle strategies to conquer the ancient kingdoms and his wisdom. What i'm trying to say is that no one notice the story behind the great victories of great legends, and that's what this book has covered best in my opinion. Nevertheless no one can deny the true wisdom of the young and real achilles , he was really powerful man.
August 31, 2017
This is a book written about Alexander the Great and his life and times as a child until he died at 32 or 33, I am not sure about the number of years. It was written in 1946. Harold Lamb writes in plain, understandable style and describes things in a very clear and matter of fact fashion. I won't say that I thoroughly enjoyed the book, after all it is ancient history and not a racy adventure. But I think it gives the reader a very clear picture of what Alexander's life and his surroundings were like. It certainly far exceeded what I learned in grade school and high school.
January 28, 2021
با خوندن این کتاب حقایق جالبی از تاریخ بر من روشن شد و با اینکه کتاب تاریخی بود قلم سختی نداشت. و اگر وقفه نیفته بین خوندنتون قطعا پیوستگی مطالب رو بهتر هم درک خواهید کرد.
یه ایرادی که میتونم بگیرم این هست که در ابتدای کتاب بسیار زیاد به کودکی اسکندر پرداخته شده اما بزرگی اون و کارهایی که کرده در حدی که باید پرداخته نشده که البته انتهای کتاب این توضیح داده شده که اسناد و مدارک کمتری و به چه دلایل از دوره بزرگسالیش موجود بوده. در کل، بازهم این کتاب کمک شایانی به شناختنون از اسکندر میکنه.
هرچند که من جواب بعضی سوالهام رو همچنان نگرفتم و باید بیشتر در این باره مطالعه کنم.
یه ایرادی که میتونم بگیرم این هست که در ابتدای کتاب بسیار زیاد به کودکی اسکندر پرداخته شده اما بزرگی اون و کارهایی که کرده در حدی که باید پرداخته نشده که البته انتهای کتاب این توضیح داده شده که اسناد و مدارک کمتری و به چه دلایل از دوره بزرگسالیش موجود بوده. در کل، بازهم این کتاب کمک شایانی به شناختنون از اسکندر میکنه.
هرچند که من جواب بعضی سوالهام رو همچنان نگرفتم و باید بیشتر در این باره مطالعه کنم.
July 29, 2024
Mas cercano al ensayo que a la novela, en este libro Lamb nos va guiando por la gran aventura de Alejandro, si bien se extraña más detalle en la narración de los hechos, se compensa ampliamente con los análisis que hace el autor sobre los mismos y sus consecuencias.
Obra para disfrutar en más de una oportunidad, con una prosa impecable que se ve afectada por los errores en la corrección que son imperdonables en una edición de este talante.
Obra para disfrutar en más de una oportunidad, con una prosa impecable que se ve afectada por los errores en la corrección que son imperdonables en una edición de este talante.
July 28, 2025
An interesting biography written almost as historical fiction (added descriptors and dialogue). you can definitely see the influence this author had on the heroic fantasy genre (REH listing Lamb as a big inspiration). I am not usually one for biographies so it can be a bit dry at times for my tastes and it does show a bit of it's age. But for what it is, it is highly accessible. Much better than other stiffer/academic approaches to the story.
Want to read
June 23, 2019its a better story
April 25, 2021
بسیاری جاها نظر مترجم اعمال شده بود
November 23, 2021
عالی
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 10, 2021
خیلی کوتاه و مختصر بود
August 13, 2023
کتاب تاریخی با ارزشی هست اما چه میشه کرد جگر انسان را میسوزاند نسبت به وقایع آن درون در ایران
January 24, 2025
I feel like this book went into more detail than the other two biographies of Alexander that I have read
February 2, 2025
He truly was “the greatest”.
September 8, 2021
چه جالب که حتی جای خواب اسکندر و عادات قبل از خواب و اینکه چه کتابی را چهقدر میخوانده و چهقدرش را از بر میکرده نیز قید شده. کاملا موثق.
July 29, 2017
حسن اخلاق و درایت برخی از زمامداران و پادشاهان ایرانی در طول خوندن کتاب برام جالب و مایه افتخار بود و البته از شدت و تعدد خیانت های سربازان و فرمانداران متعجب شدم.
December 9, 2025
A very well told story
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews