<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: When Wood isn't being biased the book isn't bad
Review: However, I do resent the extremely one-sided view that he takes when presenting Alexander. Not only that, but his book is taken almost word for word from Plutarch's (historian circa 79 AD) account of Alexander. And despite the mass of propaganda that Plutarch presents (for example, he states as fact that Alexander is the son of Zeus), Wood's is even worse. Wood portrays Alexander as a man narcisstic in his self-adoration, picking favorites among flatterers, and betraying his comrades without cause. Wood later says, point blank, that Alexander is insane by the end of his journeys. As other readers have pointed out, there is also a slew of historical inaccuracies, the most glaring of which is his constant references to Macedonians as Greeks. Macedonians are NOT Greek, as any Greek can tell you. During Alexander's time the Macedonians adored the Greeks and considered themselves to be the same, but Greeks scorned their northern neighbors as barbarians.Even so, the thing that really irritated me about this book was Wood's constant talking about the journey he was taking. Perhaps it was more interesting on television, but I really don't care about the Arab man with two wives that Wood met in Tarsus when they have NOTHING to do with the story. I recommend reading online. It's a very good site that gives an unbiased viewpoint and presents all information about Alexander without telling the reader which portions to believe.
Rating: 
Summary: A round of applause for Wood
Review: I have to say that this is great work. I feel more younger people should read this (and watch the video series) and get a better understanding of the size of Alexander's expedition and accomplishments. .... The ancient Greeks did consider the Macedonians as a Greek tribe. Some people like to point to Demosthenes' Phillipic speeches as proof of the "barbarian" attitude of the Greeks toward the Macedonians. That's misleading. Demosthenes was deathly afraid of the loss of Athenian supremacy and power if Phillip became the leader of the unified Greek states. Other Athenian politicians did not see him that way. Political rivalries were not anything new to the politically independent ancient Greeks. A closer look at Arrian and Plutarch indicates very well how these ancient historians viewed the Macedonians as Greek. Anyway, this is good work. Bravo to Mr. Wood.
Rating: 
Summary: Wrong Title and Serious Lapses in Historical Accuracy
Review: I wish that there was a more complete discussion of Alexander the Great in Herat, Afghanistan. The 'Arg', fortress, that stands in Herat today could have been the one that Alexander built subsequent to his conquest. I had the opportunity to visit Herat in March 1971 and April 1972 during my Peace Corps service in Iran. As a city, it remains in splendid isolation.
Rating:
Summary: Well conceived, with beautiful photographs
Review: I'll keep this as brief as possible. The book is a well conceived mixture of the history Alexander the Great's Asian conquests and the story of author Michael Wood's quest to follow Alexander's voyage throughout Asia and film it all for a BBC miniseries. He not only draws on the traditional sources such as Arrian and Plutarch, but also on local legends in the areas Alexander captured. The photographs are beautiful, and the maps help give a geographical perspective to the reader. An easy, interesting read, the book can be read in one evening by devoting full attention to the book.
The only criticism I have is one that is unavoidable by Wood. There are parts that tend to drag a bit, by giving casualty estimates and exact military strategies that would most likely not appeal to the average reader. The best aspect, however, is how Michael Wood gives insight to a brutal, raging alcoholic treated all too kindly by Arrian. It is worth the money to someone genuinely interested in history, but don't waste your time if you're not willing to give the attention this book deserves.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Overview
Review: I've read a lot about the man, much of it a bit academic. This book is not that but it is very entertaining and it does a very good job of taking the reader to the actual locations. The maps are poor, unfortunately, but don't be detered by that. I recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-researched look into the impact of Alexander the Great
Review: Michael Woods and his team have done an outstanding job at presenting the conquests of Alexander the Great and his impact on his short-lived empire. Obviously, a lot of effort has gone into researching the intricate details of Alexander's life, and the areas which he visited (then and now) and the reader is the one who ultimately benefits from this. Granted that the team had to rely on ancient Greek sources and local lore in piecing together Alexander's story,I wonder if the work could have been made more complete with more information on the Greek High Command eg. Craterus, Parmenio etc as well as the logistics planning that was required for the creation of empire. Also, information on Greece in Alexander's absence would have been useful in giving the reader understanding of the domestic situation. The book is commendable for its photographs and great attempts at historical accuracy. Strongly recommended for anyone interested in Greek history.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed it as a Layman
Review: Very interesting and detailed look at the routes taken, the acts, and influences left behind by this historically powerful figure who left such and indelible mark. He also died at only age 33. Although brutal, he was an adventurous traveler and enjoyed the many delights of wine, women & song. Michael Wood provides and ample supply of photos and maps to detail the routes he and Alexander took. I am not a historian, so I can't corroborate all the details for accuracy. As a history laymen I can say I enjoyed what I read and I admit my lack of knowledge in this area. For those interested in the area, I think you may find it worth reading, and then you can take what you want from that point on.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fractured but Recognizable Alexander
Review: Why did Alexander and his men risk their lives across so many continents and seas to mingle with the exotic peoples of Africa and Asia? The question intrigues most of us but British journalist and filmmaker Michael Wood takes a more active approach by brushing aside the texts and retracing Alexander's itinerary with a BBC camera crew. Illustrious scholars like Sir Aurel Stein had done it before, albeit for only a part of the route, but unattended by any Media hype. Another Englishman, Thomas Coryat (AD 1616), thought he had seen relics of Alexander in India. He was greatly impressed by a magnificent (Asokan) pillar and presumed that it must have been erected by Alexander the Great 'in token of his victorie' over Porus. Wood does not know that Coryat was right, that the Delhi-Topra Pillar was indeed brought from the Beas area where Alexander had come.
Wood's overflowing energy leaves us stunned - he retraces Alexander's journey by car, on horseback and camel, by boat, and at times on foot, yet his hyperbole often betrays a rather obtuse prognosis. He naively accepts the negative views of some Greeks and of the people conquered by Alexander but remains suspicious of any pro-Alexander view, labelling these as propaganda. Ignoring the Sanskrit or Pali sources, he tries to reconstruct Alexander using only the Greek and Roman texts. He rightly says "Alexander's conquest of most of the known world was a crucial turning point in history which opened up contacts between Europe and Asia, paved the way for the Roman Empire and the spread of Islam, and unleashed astonishing historical energies that continue to affect the world today", but misses probably the most important component - Buddhism. Toynbee noted the close links between Buddhism and Hellenism and Tarn gave the clue that the Brahmans(the priestly party opposed to the Buddhists) always fought with Alexander. Moreover wood misses that the real name of Calanus, Alexander's Guru, was Sphines which is the same as Aspines or Asvaghosa, the great Buddhist scholar. As Coryat realized, some of the Asokan pillars were in fact altars of Alexander. Wood has not understood why Plutarch wrote that Alexander's altars were considered to be sacred even by the Mauryas. Ignoring the usual Dionysius-Semiramis stories Wood boldy ponders why Alexander took the most dangerous route through Gedrosia, suffering huge casualties (both civilian and military) from lack of water, food, and the extreme heat. He plays with the theory that Alexander may have been exploring whether cities could be founded along the coastline for trade between the India and the Persian Gulf. The simple answer here is that Alexander was chasing the mighty Moeris who was in fact Chandragupta Maurya of Prasii ([another website]). Wood does not even dream that part of the Gulf area in those days could have been part of India. Why did Alexander celebrate his victory over the Indians at Kahnuj? Interestingly, although Wood does not recognize Moeris, unlike most modern writers and even Tarn, he suspects that both Hephaistion and Alexander may have been poisoned by a group of Alexander's 'exasperated and disillusioned' senior officers (p. 230). He describes a Zoroastrian temple in Iran where he learns that Alexander is regarded as a devil and called Iskander Gujaste but does not realize that Alexander's enemies united under an anti-Buddhist Zoroastrian nationalist platform. The successes of both Perdiccas and Seleucus were due to the backing they got from Zoroastrian nationalists. Although Wood fails at the end to piece together a convincing real life Alexander, the book remains enjoyable on the whole.
<< 1 >>
| 
