Philip and Alexander: Kings and Conquerors Hardcover – October 13, 2020

I am only about 2/3 of the way through the book, but I feel Mr. Goldsworthy has done an excellent job in presenting the historical facts of the events he depicts in his book as they are known to us. It is very obvious that he has done a great deal of research for the book. Although he, sometimes, goes into a lot of detail in his explanations, the narrative does not get bogged down by the mundane, and it never gets tedious or monotonous. It all moves along smoothly, and the style of writing is such that it is not difficult to read or understand. What I really appreciate about this biography is that Mr. Goldsworthy addresses a lot of history about Philip that normally is never mentioned when one reads about Philip's son, Alexander, which the author mentions at the outset as being one of his goals when starting this project. And at that, I feel he succeeds wonderfully. I find the book very informative and extremely interesting. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in this type of historical biography, and would want to, possibly, learn more about these two dynamic, historical military figures.

This is a very readable book about two extremely important men, based on history’s actual knowledge of them, which is a bit limited. The author does a great job of sorting out and piecing together information from a number of sources into a very entertaining story. The descriptions of who wrote what In terms of the history and speculations on why they wrote it are fascinating.

Roman historian Adrian Goldsworthy moved backward in time from that era to write a study of the most successful father and son duo in military history. The Alexander The Great biographies I have read (Peter Green and Robin Lane Fox are the major ones) concentrated on him while relegating Philip II to a supporting role. Goldsworthy sets aside about 40 percent of his 500 page text to showing how Philip led Macedon from a minor player to the leading kingdom in Greece during his twenty-plus year reign. Alexander used his father's victories as a springboard to lead a conquering army through the Persian empire all the way to India before being forced to turn back by his weary troops. The campaigns and battles are well covered considering the sparse and contradictory sources. Goldsworthy tried to be fair to the often ruthless and brutal Philip and Alexander, pointing out they were no worse than their contemporaries. Perhaps so, but reading this book with Putin's savage 2022 war against Ukraine as a backdrop was a sobering reminder that might does not make right and that international law, morality, and compassion for others ultimately do matter. If Goldsworthy was writing about Philip and Alexander today, would he be harsher judging the duo? Four stars.

Really two separate biographies in one book. But written in a way that clearly shows how Alexander benefited from his father's experience and conquests, and just as clearly demonstrates that Philip should be known as Philip the Great. In many ways he accomplished more than Alexander, as he started with nothing and created the "nation" of Macedonia and the first Macedonian empire by a combination of conquest and guile. Alexander would not have accomplished so much so fast if not for Philip. They are interconnected and this book really makes that connection clear. Very readable, though perhaps a bit dense for some general readers. I loved it.

interesting bookfast shippinggreat history book

I loved this book! I read Philip and Alexander, first on kindle after I’d first encountered Philip Freeman’s very charitable Alexander read, and Paul Cartledge’s more reluctant, yet stringent treatment, in that order (third). Ultimately, I’ve decided to take on the Landmark Arrian, (pulling in Diodorus, Curtius, Justin, and Plutarch where necessary), and I still find myself returning to Goldsworthy’s meticulous and exacting description, when the ancient text is confusing. In some ways, he will give you the most thorough and concise explanation of what unfolded.Alot of Alexander bios are by people who don’t really like the guy. Such a point of view doesn’t make for interesting reading. However, to portray the guy as without flaw is foolish also. It seems that Goldsworthy tries to weigh the evidence with neither passion nor prejudice for the figures, so that we the readers might best weigh the evidence to consider what was going on at the time. Neither overly charitable, nor damning, nor speculative, he provides a description of the events that do not laud the figures themselves so much as inspire wonder and curiosity for the times in which they lived.

Eu já acompanho os livros de Adrian Goldsworthy , desde que o encontrei em referências importantes sobre o exército romano e os principais generais, sobre Cipião Africano e a guerra púnica, etc. É um autor com trabalhos destacados sobre Roma Antiga, especialmente na construção do exército e o impacto que o mesmo teve para tornar Roma uma potência.Eu achava que ele só escrevia sobre Roma. Tomei um susto ao descobrir que escrevia sobre muitos outros cenários históricos. Isso aconteceu quando encontrei essa obra sobre os macedônios.Como sempre encontro em todos os seus livros, este também foi muito bem pesquisado, contextualizado, e utilizou uma ampla variedade de fontes. Gosto de Goldsworthy porque apresenta reflexões sobre as ideologias que influenciaram as fontes literárias mais antigas. E eu estava buscando justamente uma obra que tratasse não só de Alexandre, como é o habitual, mas de Philip também. Afinal, desde o início ficou muito claro para mim que o pai era tão ou mais competente que o filho. Claro que não estou diminuindo a grandeza de Alexandre, mas muito do que se diz dele é influenciado por uma aura de mistério que permeia toda a carreira de sucesso cuja pessoa deixou o palco no auge.Alexandre morreu no auge. Então, não sabemos se ele teria as habilidades necessárias para manter tudo o que conquistou. Philip, ao contrário, pegou uma Macedônia fraca e caótica, uniu as tribos do norte e do sul, criou políticas, reformou o exército, treinou e modernizou... Enfim, ele entregou tudo isso pronto, quando foi assassinado. Alexandre cresceu e foi educado conforme o plano maior de Philip que até persuadiu o filósofo mais famoso de seu tempo a ser professor do seu filho.Além do mais, temos que considerar as intervenções de Olympia, que também foi uma jogadora política tão cruel e inteligente quanto qualquer um dos personagens influentes na vida de Alexandre. Com um detalhe importante para mim: educou um futuro rei mais sensível ao bem estar das mulheres. Assim, eu diria, que Alexandre pode ter sido o produto do seu tempo, mas, também foi um rapaz muito a frente do seu tempo, quando pensou por si mesmo e não tratou os povos persas como Aristóteles achava que ele deveria tratar.Frente a todas essas variáveis, passíveis de diferentes interpretações, Adrian Goldsworthy tem o cuidado de mostrar a informação com a neutralidade científica necessária; embora ele também saiba opinar nos pontos mais cruciais, de forma a separar com clareza sua própria opinião do que as fontes antigas relatam. Isso é muito importante, pois dá a opção ao leitor de ler algo do tipo: "aqui está, você pode pensar por si mesmo o que acha de tudo isso".Um dos melhores livros sobre o tema Alexandre, o grande, sem dúvida.

Mr. Goldsworthy has written a book which captures the essence that made Alexander "Great". His narrative is thorough, listing all of the conditions necessary for Alexander achieve his amazing battlefield results, his reign and the end result. The book's conclusion is a gem , almost worth the purchase.

If it is your first book on the subject it is more than fine, but I still prefer Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon".

The world is not short of excellent books on Alexander the Great, so is there space for another one?The answer has to be yes, because this account also takes an in-depth look at the achievements of Alexander’s father, Phillip. In taking this approach, Goldsworthy gives us a picture of a Macedonia that successfully moved from being on the point of collapse to conquering a huge empire in barely 40 years.Whilst Alexander’s achievements are spectacular, this account also shows how Phillip provided the solid foundations that would facilitate Alexander’s subsequent successes. We are shown how, prior to Phillips accession, the Macedonian state waxed and waned along with the strength of its rulers and neighbours. A king’s accession was by no means assured and any perceived sign of weakness would be seized upon by both internal challengers and hungry neighbours, so a successful Macedonian ruler had to have a strong army, an acute sense of political strategy and be successful.This is the essence of Goldsworthy’s narrative. He shows how both father and son came to power in an environment where the perception of strength was paramount and both father and son had to continue to “ride the tiger” or fall.As always Goldsworthy’s narrative flows well. He has an easy writing style, with an effective shift between detail and overview where appropriate. He is willing to point up and discuss inconsistencies between sources and will often give what he considers the most probable turn of events, whilst making it clear where his stated view is only an opinion.The book is well illustrated with both battle plans and strategic maps as well as a bibliography with some very useful comments. It is an excellent account for the general reader.

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.