Philip and Alexander: Kings and Conquerors by Adrian Goldsworthy

Philip and Alexander: Kings and Conquerors Reviews

• 
  Faith

  I’ve read quite a bit about Alexander the Great, but almost nothing about his father, Philip II. This book filled in the gaps for me, but Alexander is still the fascinating one in this duo. He conquered much of the known world by the time he died at 33. Since that required one military action after another, this book is very heavily into military history. Alexander was really insatiable. There was always another place to conquer, regardless of the hardships he and his army had to endure. Alexander spent almost no time in Macedonia. I would have liked to have learned more about who was running things while he was away, but that was not the focus of this book. Anyway, things seem to have run smoothly with Alexander sending huge amounts of plundered loot back home.
  
  Unfortunately, I’m not really interested in military history, so I got a little bored with the battles. However, the author did a good job tying together the stories written by various chroniclers of Alexander’s exploits, explaining their presumed biases and identifying possible exaggerations. The book was very well written and had the feel of a novel. At the beginning of the book there are maps and a chronology. The book also has an extensive bibliography and end notes. 4.5 stars
  
  I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.
• 
  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 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.
• 
  Edward

  Excellently written, informative and enjoyable.
• 
  saïd

  Ah, Adrian Goldsworthy... you and I have a long and chequered history, don’t we.
  
  This book is 600 pages of war, which is more or less appropriate for the lives of Philip II and Alexander III of Macedon. The writing style is certainly engaging and well-executed, and the facts are solid. The biggest issue I had with this book is the lack of focus on Olympias, Alexander’s mother and Philip’s fifth (but principal) wife. Not only was she one of the most influential figures in Alexander’s life (more so than his father, and second only to Hephaestion), she was an accomplished politician and military general in her own right, serving as the de facto leader of Macedon while Alexander was away doing all his conquering. Goldsworthy says:

  There is a good deal that we cannot know. Alexander’s mother, Olympias, was clearly a strong personality, and it would be revealing to know far more about her, and to understand her relationship with her husband and her son, but the evidence does not exist. Women tend to be a shadowy presence in much of ancient history, and although it is obvious that they were often highly influential, their own voice is not preserved and they are seen solely through the prism of others. Lamenting this fact does not change it.

  We... do know about her relationship with at least her son. Perhaps we don’t have a missive in Alexander’s own hand saying “I love my mama,” but we have everything but; both Philip II and Alexander III were genuinely terrible at both economics and kingship—this is evidenced not only in more-or-less contemporary historic sources, but also practically speaking in the rapid collapse of Alexander’s empire after his death, and in the hobbled state in which it was passed from father to son—whereas Olympias, who by all accounts had a more reasonable head on her shoulders, displayed immense practicality in monetary and political matters. Again: after Alexander’s death his entire empire fell apart in under two years (that’s a charitable estimate), because a lack of a strong ruler (competent or otherwise—pace the Dioscuri) meant danger; during the vast majority of the time Alexander was away from Macedon—which was most of his adult life, given that he ruled from age 20 to his death at age 32—Olympias was in charge, and no coups, if there were any, were successful, nor did there seem to be any doubt about who was in charge. That’s more than can be said for both kings of Macedon.
  
  Of course direct sources (i.e., writings from the people themselves) are lacking, but there’s quite a bit of near-contemporary writing about Olympias and her family, as Goldsworthy actually notes a bit later on:

  Olympias from Epirus became by far the most important of Philip’s wives, although according to Plutarch her real name was Polyxena, and Olympias was just a nickname. He says that she was also sometimes called Myrtale and Stratonice. Justin says that she was called Myrtale as a little girl, but otherwise all our sources refer to her as Olympias and it remains the convention to use this name. There are far more stories about her than any of the other wives because in due course she would become the mother of Alexander the Great. As he became the favoured heir and then king, she became more important, while after his death Olympias was one of the main players in the bloody struggle to succeed him. At this time she led an army, executed rivals and was finally killed. Alexander’s own self-promoted image, let alone the propaganda from the years after his death in 323 BC, inevitably created or distorted the tales of his mother and her relationship with Philip. Plutarch says that ‘we are told that Philip, after being initiated into the mysteries of Samothrace at the same time with Olympias, he being himself still a youth and she an orphan child, fell in love with her and betrothed himself to her at once with the consent of her brother [Arybbas].’

  Plutarch’s
  Life of Alexander is... a somewhat reliable source, and written only around 400 years after Alexander (which is great by ancient historian standards). Even Plutarch acknowledges Alexander’s relationship with Olympias (and Hephaestion), such as in this passage (Dryden’s translation):

  [Olympias] often wrote to him to this purpose, and he never communicated her letters to anybody, unless it were one which he opened when Hephæstion was by, whom he permitted, as his custom was, to read it along with him; but then as soon as he had done, he took off his ring, and set the seal upon Hephæstion’s lips.

  But back to Goldsworthy.
  
  In chapter nine of this book, Goldsworthy says:

  Through his father, Alexander was an Argead descended from Hercules. Olympias and the Molossian royal house boasted Achilles, the greatest warrior of all the Greeks in the Trojan War, as an ancestor. There is no doubt that she was strong willed to the point of ruthlessness—as was Philip and subsequently Alexander. Her passionate nature went naturally with devotion to the cult of Dionysius in the local form, which included keeping tame snakes in imitation of the Maenads, female companions of the god famed for their wildly ecstatic behaviour. Plutarch tells a story of Philip peeking—or dreaming that he peeked—into Olympias’ bedroom and being horrified to see a snake lying with her [...].

  Plutarch says that “a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip’s passion for her.”
  
  Again, although it’s impossible to know for certain how Philip II thought of Olympias, we can look at his actions and from them discern at least how much he valued her as a tool if not as a person. Quoting again from Goldsworthy:

  After Chaeronea [Philip] commissioned a grand monument at the shrine of Zeus at Olympia. Known as the Philippeion, it was circular in shape (a tholos), the tiled roof supported by an outer circle of eighteen Ionic columns and an inner ring of nine Doric columns. In the heart—at least partially visible from outside, for there were no walls—were five statues, each one of marble decorated with gold. In the centre stood Philip, with his parents on one side and Alexander and Olympias on the other. [...] Situated at one of the greatest and most frequently visited Panhellenic shrines, the unusual circular shape and splendour of the monument ensured that it stood out, honouring the leader of the Greeks in the war of vengeance against Persia.

  Besides being a monument to Philip’s own glory (gotta love that egotism), the inclusion of Olympias—who was not his first wife, mind—can be taken to mean that he valued her if for no other reason than her birthing of Alexander. It would have been easy to exclude Olympias, as a woman, a fifth wife, and a foreigner (i.e., not Macedonian), but Philip didn’t.
  
  Some ancient sources claim that Olympias was at least somewhat responsible for Philip’s murder, although there’s no precise evidence either for or against this notion; regardless, she was certainly influential during Alexander’s 12-year rule, both as the mother of the king and as one of Alexander’s most trusted advisors. I’m really being too harsh on Goldsworthy here, as the book only purports to discuss Philip II and Alexander III, not Olympias or any other women, and the attention Goldsworthy does pay to Olympias is still more than many previous biographers—ancient or modern. The book is fine.
  
  Anyway, here’s an unrelated quote from the book I thought was amusing:

  Sexuality was a minor concern when the Greeks or Romans tried to understand someone’s character, which ought to put the modern obsession into some sort of perspective.

  Ha! Well played.
• 
  Radwa

  I realized what I don't like about history book: focusing only on battles and the war aspect of a civilization.
  
  While this book was promising and I was getting on very well with the writing style, I couldn't see myself reading 600 pages of battle after battle. The author did warn at the introduction that he's going to focus on the war aspect but I didn't think it'd be this boring to me. There's hints of culture and life, but sadly for me, the war and battles take the lead here and that's not something I like to read about.
  
  I thank Netgalley for the digital ARC.
• 
  Faustibooks

  "Some individuals change history."
  
  This was the first sentence of the book and it couldn't have been more fitting. With this amazing book by Goldsworthy being a biography of both Philip II of Macedon and his more famous son, Alexander the Great. Both of these men led extraordinary lives and their achievements cannot be overstated.
  
  Philip II came to power in a weak and very unstable Macedonia, a poor frontier region of the Greek world. He overcame many crises and reformed the kingdom and its army extensively, defeating invading armies and usurpers, while also engaging in smart diplomacy. In some decades he managed to subjugate most of Greece and made himself the Hegemon of the Hellenic League, a truly impressive accomplishment.
  
  However, rightfully or not, Philip often gets overshadowed by his son Alexander. Personally, Alexander the Great is my favourite person in history and his epic story is one I always enjoy reading about. As of now, this is my third biography of him and I already know that it won't be the last. Coming to power at the age of just 20 after the murder of his father, he inherits a strong and influential Macedonia. After campaigning against some tribes in the Balkans and restoring order in Greece, he and his army set out on the invasion of the mighty Persian Empire. After merely 12 years he managed to conquer an empire stretching from the Adriatic all the way to India, dying at the age of 32, while he was planning even more conquests. Alexander's story is full of great anecdotes of the king's bravery and boldness, from the siege of Tyre and the Battle of Gaugamela to the campaigns in the upper satrapies, his short reign is full of them.
  
  He and his men traveled thousands and thousands of kilometres, crossing great rivers such as the Euphrates and the Indus, traversing many different landscapes, from arid deserts to the humid lands of India where the weapons of the Macedonians rapidly rusted in the monsoon season with heavy rainfall. From the coasts of Asia Minor to the mountains of the Hindu Kush, Alexander and his men campaigned extensively, gaining many victories and never losing a major battle. It is no wonder that many throughout history have always looked up to him as a great example. In fact, most of the history books that I've read so far, whether they're about the Romans or about Napoleon, always mention him, either as a comparison or as the image of the perfect leader, whose achievements and glory are unrivaled.
  
  However, as Goldsworthy correctly mentions throughout the book, Alexander would probably not have achieved what he had done without the achievements of Philip before him. Many times, Philip is only talked about as a simple prelude to Alexander, which is extremely unfair, as what he did was great by itself. It is unfortunate that the sources we have are not all as reliable or complete as we would like, especially those on Philip II. Goldsworthy is one of my favourite authors and this book only confirms this. His way of writing is great and engaging, while also stating when the sources used do not agree with each other. Sometimes, I felt it was disappointing when some anecdotes were left out or not extensively spoken about. But I completely understand as the book is about both men and not just Alexander, while also already being more than 500 pages long. All in all, this was an amazing book that was well-researched and without a doubt deserves the full five stars!
• 
  Liquidlasagna

  Amazon review
  
  Informative and entertaining
  
  Adrian Goldsworthy is one of my favourite historians and this book doesn't disappoint.
  
  Highlights:
  
  Philip gets a substantial portion of this book and has me thinking he deserves a title of 'the great' more than his more famous son.
  
  Goldsworthy's style flows and can feel like reading a novel (no surprise then he writes novels too!).
  
  AG acknowledges clearly, as part of the narrative, when there is uncertainty and offers differing possibilities.
  
  Whether intentional or not my view of Alexander was altered on conclusion of this book. I finished it feeling that Philip was the greater statesman, unifier and leader and that Alexander's 'achievements' more closer resemble piracy, particularly later in his campaigns once Persia was defeated. He appears to have brought misery to a lot of people purely for having the misfortune of existing along his line of march. Since this didn't result in a long lived civilisation its hard to see any benefit to those people sucked into his 'Empire'.
  
  Harry Flashman
  
  ---
  
  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.
  
  Grognard
• 
  Jerome Otte

  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.
• 
  Shahin Keusch

  This was a really good biography on both Philip and his son Alexander the great. Of course everyone knows about Alexander but this book really went into detail, which I found really interesting. And it never got boring. I really liked that the first part of the book was about Philip. It shows how important he was and that without him maybe Alexander would not have been "great". 
  
  
  I like Adrian Goldsworthy's books. I read one on Anthony and Cleopatra and now this one. And luckily there are many more, both fiction and non fiction. I will try to read the one on the Punic Wars as I want to find out more on Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. They are supposed to be some of the greatest generals in world history after Alexander the great. 
  
  
  Highly recommended 
• 
  John

  Kudos to Mr. Adrian Goldsworthy on this epic biography of Philip II of Macedon and Alexander III of Macedon. This was bar none, the best researched and best written narrative of the life of Alexander the Great that I've had the privilege of reading.
  This also happened to be the first biography of Philip of Macedon that I've read. Which was also excellent in both substance and style. I really liked that the author chose to tell the stories of both of these extraordinary men in one volume. Very reminiscent to Plutarch's "Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans."
  After reading this dual biography, I agree with the author that there could never have been an Alexander the Great without Philip II of Macedon.
  
  5 Stars and an absolute must read for any fan of Ancient History.
  
• 
  Craig Chapman

  Fantastic and gripping read about Philip and Alexander.
  Highly recommend this book any fans of ancient history
• 
  Carlos

  4.5 stars for this book, how can you read a book this big and not give it a 5 star rating?.
  Well while I loved the content of the book and I was glad to read a book that focused a lot more on Philip and his story before Alexander, The format of the book is basically 200 pages (which is a lot longer than any other book about him ) about Philip and 300 pages about Alexander. The sources were carefully selected and the narrative flowed very smoothly and at some points it felt like you were reading a fictional account (which is a compliment for a nonfiction book as big as this one). The reason that I did not give it a 5 star rating was because the book did focus a little too much in the battles and preparation for them. While any book that deals with Alexander and his campaigns cannot help but focus on the battles I think this book could have done something different. IT was a great effort to put this book together but if you are not into battles you wont appreciate it. I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in Hellenic history.
• 
  Richard Hannay

  La mayor virtud de este libro es presentar a Filipo y Alejandro como un continuo. Alejandro no hace sino completar, brillantemente, los planes de Filipo, un personaje cuya brillantez, inteligencia y arrojo no son en modo alguno inferiores a los de su hijo al que quizá supera incluso en truculencia. El mayor defecto no haber continuado con los "juegos fúnebres" a los que se entregaron los generales de Alejandro a la muerte de éste. Cierto que ello probablemente requeriría su propio libro o un par de ellos.
  
  Como siempre Goldsworthy conoce perfectamente el material, escribe con claridad y elegancia y juzga con inteligencia. Un libro muy recomendable.
• 
  Heinz Reinhardt

  A truly excellent dual biography/military/political history of Philip of Macedon, and his more famous son: Alexander the Great. While not taking anything away from the accomplishments of Alexander, Goldsworthy does a very job in the first third of the book of showing how Philip laid the foundation of his son's later triumphs.
  And in his discussion of Alexander, Goldsworthy eschews the notion of more than a few who have claimed that Alexander was insane, or a savage. He places both men within the context of their times, never falling prey to the en vogue heresy of Presentism, and showcases them for the Kings, and Conquerors they truly were.
  And, since it is an Adrian Goldsworthy work, it serves as a useful primer on the broader political, and military, history of the era in Greece and the Middle East.
  Very well written, well argued, and genuinely enjoyable to read, this is one of the best books on either Philip or his legendary son.
• 
  Justine

  Thanks to NetGalley and Basic Books for providing an ARC!
  _________________________________
  Unfortunately, after some months without touching this book, I think it's time to DNF it.
  
  It's well written, well researched; but it might be too precise and detailed for me who know next to nothing about Macedonia, Philip and Alexander. I was there to learn, but it's not a good introduction; it's a book I should pick up when I'm ready to learn more after getting some bases first. So, I might go back to this book later!
• 
  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.
• 
  Shivesh

  The Great and the Greatest
  
  
  
  This 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.
• 
  Jacob Stelling

  I found this book enjoyable in the sense that it gave me a good background to Philip and Alexander and how they achieved so much.
  
  However, I felt the book was overly long, especially considering how little we really know about these two men. I also found this illustrated many of the challenges with biography as a format for such ancient figures, when we only have fragmentary evidence to support our narratives.
• 
  Thomas Van Daele

  heel veel gevechtjes
• 
  Tzu

  Goldsworthy did it again. With his catching writing, wide scope, and extensive research, he manages to make history come to life.
• 
  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 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.
• 
  Mandy

  I should have known what to expect. A book about Philip and Alexander was bound to have a lot in it about fighting and battles, and unfortunately fighting and battles are just not my thing. But for anyone for whom such things are of interest, and for anyone interested in the rise of ancient Greece, then this will be a real treat. Scholarly and detailed, thoroughly researched, and written in a readable and accessible way, this joint biography is, I can see, very good indeed. It just wasn’t for me. However, I have no hesitation in rating it highly and I can see that many readers have loved it and appreciated it.
• 
  Chris

  Goldsworthy has produced not only a balanced and accurate analysis of this fascinating Father and son duo from the ancient world, but also one that is interesting to read. Highly recommended.
• 
  Koeneman

  The fourth book I read of Adrian. This is a little bit of a hard one to review because of the fact that there are so many things not known about Alexander and especially Phillipus.
  
  The book is mostly guessing what happend but that is not always bad in a way. Adrian tries to make it as controllable as possible and he does a good work with that. 1/3rd is about Phillipus and many is guess work, with Alexander more things are known but still a lot is uncertain.
  
  Overall this was a good book but nothing to special.
  
  7.5/10
• 
  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.
• 
  sonja

  4.5.
  
  An excellent overview of Philip and Alexander that gives Philip his full due. Given my familiarity with the subject this was more of a refresher than anything, but I certainly don't regret the time spent reading this.
• 
  Lydia

  I really enjoyed this, particularly the earlier section about Philip about whom I knew far less. As with almost any book about Alexander, there was a lot more detail about all the battles than I really needed, but great stuff otherwise.