Macedonia, 344-342 a.C.

Cuando era un niño, Alejandro soñaba con emular las gestas de Aquiles. A los dieciocho años condujo a la victoria a la caballería macedonia contra los griegos en el Quersoneso. A los veinticinco había aplastado a los persas en tres batallas legendarias y era el amo del mayor imperio que el mundo haya conocido jamás. Cuando falleció, invicto, a los treinta y dos años de edad, no quedaban más mundos por conquistar y había superado con creces las proezas de su héroe de infancia. Ahora bien, detrás de la leyenda hubo otra historia más compleja.

Narrada por su amigo de infancia Tolomeo, esta es la historia del afamado Alejandro Magno. Se trata de una versión algo más inédita de lo que hay hasta ahora, es cruda, humana, muy íntima y tiene momentos emocionantes.

La historia de un coraje extraordinario y una fuerza de voluntad inimaginable. La tragedia épica de un hombre que aspiraba a ser más que humano.

Gran interpretación de la vida de Alejandro de un escritor que para muchos está en la cima de la novela histórica como uno de los mejores. En este caso ha sido una cata aceptable. Como en toda novela histórica y en cada de período hay muchas cosas que se pueden debatir.

Por ejemplo a algunos lectores no les gustará la cantidad de escenas de batallas y sangre, pero mi respuesta a eso es que es imposible escribir siendo realista sobre la vida de un hombre cuya vida giró en torno a la guerra y la conquista, sin eso la historia no sería nada realista, ni sería fiable. Además de vacía.

Estamos ante una visión general de la vida de Alejandro que cubre su vida bastante bien. Un punto muy fuerte del libro es la comprensión de Cameron del caos que ocurre en las batallas y el papel que juega la suerte entre otras cosas en su resultado. Le da al libro una sensación mucho más realista que tratar de evitar la maldad de las guerras y la ambición de las personas. Es una interpretación muy realista y descarnada de la vida de Alejandro. Igual no a la altura (cercana igual) de la famosa obra del autor Valerio Manfredi, aún no puedo opinar.

Me complace decirlo, lo ha clavado. El libro es la historia de Alejandro, contada a través de los ojos de Ptolomeo. Ptolomeo es un personaje del que sabía muy poco, solo que terminó como rey en Egipto después de la muerte de Alejandro.

Caminando a través de Ptolomeo, los lectores sienten lo que es derramar sangre, vencer a los enemigos y experimentar el triunfo. Las ganas de conquistar. Mi hachazo para el libro es doble. Primero, que fue un poco largo. Podría haberse acortado ya que algunas cosas realmente no le aportaban jugo a la trama. Cuando era bueno, era genial, no lo sueltas, pero había partes que se arrastraban un poco más de lo que a mi me hubiera gustado. Subjetivo como cada reseña.

Atravesaremos mares, escalaremos montañas, vadearemos ríos, pelearemos a pie y a caballo, asistiremos a asedios, cabalgaremos por Grecia y Persia como si fuéramos un dios de la guerra o como un soldado.

Amaremos, odiaremos, desearemos, también perderemos amigos, parientes, a hermanos de sangre y armas. Eso es "El Dios de la Gerra" de Christian Cameron. Esta es la vida de aquel que se convirtió en una leyenda atemporal, esta es la historia de Alejandro Magno.

Considero que el trabajo de investigación y de documentación es enorme el tiempo invertido, las diferentes opiniones y la popularidad de Alejandro, los muchos e importantes personajes históricos con los que estuvo. No es el libro que uno pueda esperar. Pues Alejandro era humano y con ello quiero decir que Alejandro no fue de ninguna manera un héroe, un salvador ni fue la mejor persona, tenía su caracter, sus defectos, pero sin embargo era una persona muy notable, era noble y muy decidido. Soñaba, la diferencia es que a través del camino que inició su padre Filipo, fue capaz de cumplir esos sueños, quizás de superarlos. El poder desde luego corrompe, pero el poder absoluto puede llegar a cegar..

La interpretación de Alejandro por parte de Cameron el brillante. El propio autor explica en sus notas que y esto me pareció curioso que cree que Alejandro fue una especie de "tirano" griego. Tampoco es una suposición o una teoría del todo irrazonable o descabellada, pues era humano, sus cosas buenas y malas, sobretodo ya que conquistó sin parar y nunca gobernó. Pero no puedo como lector y caminante de la historia sino evitar quedarme muy impresionado por sus hazañas y sus logros.

Donde Cameron realmente brilla. Es en que no hay repetitividad en ninguna de las batallas famosas. Cada uno trae nuevos desafíos, éxitos y fracasos, todo está hecho de una manera muy eficiente. Los personajes, la historia evoluciona de manera natural. Todo bien llevado e hilado.

De todos modos, es un libro grande, completo y complejo, no todo son batallas, aún con varios momentos que igual sobran y podrían quitarse nunca dejó de ser interesante. Es un libro bien documentado, nunca condescendiente y si muy emocionante. Historia del mayor conquistador del hombre más aclamado, estudiado y narrado.66 s Mr. Matt288 90

I am always leery of historical fiction that focuses too closely on a single historical person or event - especially one who is so prominent. Too tight of a focus on a single significant person or event can squeeze the tension out of the story. It becomes a quasi-historical narrative rather than a unique story that follows its own unique path. My own preference is to read historical fiction focusing on smaller events and people working (and making possible) in the shadows of great people/events.

God of War, I am pleased to say, nails it. The book is the story of Alexander, but it is told through the eyes of Ptolemy. Ptolemy is a character that I knew very little about - other then he does wind up as King in Egypt after Alexander's death. Focusing on Ptolemy frees up the story from the weight of history.

Walking in Ptolemy's shoes the reader overcomes enemies and experiences triumph. Ptolemy grows and discovers love. He takes part in a great struggle against an ancient foe, the Persians. We are also there as he feels regret and disgust at the loss of friends and innocent Persians, Syrians, and Indians. And we are there when he loses faith in a childhood friend, Alexander. Alexander in many ways emerges as the primary nemesis of Ptolemy - and this makes the story work.

My main knock on the book is two fold. First, it was a bit long. I wonder if it could have been tightened up at all. When it was good it was great, but there were parts that dragged a bit more than I would've d. Next, on finishing the book I wondered whether or not the book made an unfair characterization of Alexander. He comes across as pretty bad. I don't know, and I guess that is OK.

A solid four stars.2013 hf-ancient-world19 s Liviu2,323 654

I am a big fan of Christian Cameron "Classical Greek World" novels - there are two duologies so far in the Tyrant series of which I reviewed King of the Bosporus (the fourth novel and second dealing with the children of Kineas who is the main hero of the first two books) and two novels in the Killer of Men series that take place some 150-200 years earlier and feature Arimnestos of Plataea, hero of Marathon and ancestor of Kineas and his twins, Satyrus and Melitta.

So while expecting the fifth Tyrant novel (which should have been published in Jan/Feb) and the third Arimnestos one (due in the summer), I was a bit disappointed that Mr. Cameron published God of War which supposedly tells (again and after a ton of similar novels and a few popular movies) the story of Alexander.

However I read a review and realized that actually God of War is told by Ptolemy, king of Egypt and important secondary character of the Tyrant series to Satyrus about the time when the twins found refuge in Alexandria and I realized that actually this book ties in perfectly with the series, so of course it became an asap and I got and read it immediately despite its almost 800 pages.

And of course Kineas is quite important in the book though indeed the novel focuses on Ptolemy's life from childhood till the death of Alexander in Babylon in 323. As "legal" son of the richest Macedonian noble and rumoured that he was actually Philip's illegitimate son, so Alexander's step brother, Ptolemy is raised with Alexander and becomes a principal adviser and general, though he never attains the influence of Alexander's intimate friend Hephaestion.

Nicknamed "farm boy" for his forthrightness and occasional less of sophistication, Ptolemy both loves and later almost worships Alexander, while also trying to keep him grounded. If Hephaestion told Alexander what he d to hear, Ptolemy told him what he "needed" to hear and the unquestionable loyalty he showed during their early years and later during the difficult years of Alexander's marginalization by his father, made Ptolemy the only possible person who could tell hard truths to the increasingly "god " king.

That made Ptolemy less than popular on occasion with the king, but his immense wealth and later his relationship with Thais, famous Athenian hetaira and unofficial spy-mistress of the Macedonians, his friendship with Kineas, the Athenian nobleman and cavalry commander and his camaraderie with his soldiers and officers compensated for that, though of course after the Persian conquest it became more and more dangerous to offer the slightest hint of dissent to Alexander as numerous Macedonian noblemen and generals paid with their lives for that.

"‘What’s he thinking of?’ I asked Thaïs, who rode between me and Kineas.
Thaïs smiled. ‘He isn’t going to lay siege to it,’ she said. ‘He’s going to make love to it.’
She was at her most witty when she was enigmatic. So I smiled at her and kept my scouts moving."

So the novel spans about 20 years, starting their early teen years at Pella and their study under Aristotle, though the bulk of it deals with Alexander's ascension and then his Persian conquest, while his last seven years after the burning of Persepolis in 330 are mostly summarized in the last hundred fifty or so of pages which are more vignette .

As this is a Christian Cameron novel, the world building is exceptional and the description of army life, marches and supplies is as exciting and thorough as the description of battles and sieges. While Alexander, "the God of War" is always the main focus of the big picture, Ptolemy and Thais are the main characters and their relationship from their first meeting in Athens to their quasi-marriage and lifelong partnership are the keystone of the novel and what raises it above the many offerings on the subject.

As I tend to believe that the author's take on Alexander is as close to reality as it can be done, 2300+ years later and few original sources beyond the brute facts - details of which are still unknown and/or controversial - the novel worked very well from this point of view.

"I didn’t think he was insane – if he had ever been sane by the standards of normal men, he still was. But the enormous wound he’d taken and the drugs Philip must have put into him to keep him on his feet – by Apollo’s bow, I still look for any excuse to cover him. He ordered almost fifty thousand men and women killed between Tyre and Gaza, and for nothing. Everyone else had already submitted. There was no example to be made. And the killing of Batis went clean against his code – except that more and more frequently, he seemed to be set on the annihilation of all resistance, rather than the honourable combat and complex warrior friendships of the Iliad.It was a paradox – the kind on which Aristotle thrived – that Alexander seemed to want to create the world of the Iliad – a world of near-eternal war and heroism – and yet seemed to want to destroy all of his opponents so that they could not continue the struggle."

God of War is a top 25 novel of mine in 2012 and as a standalone page turner with so much great stuff and an epic story that has stood as a model for such for all these 23 centuries, I think that anyone who loves epics should give it a try.2012_release_read mainstream read_2012 ...more15 s Chris57 54 Read

The hardest book I ever wrote.11 s Michal186

IMHO so far the best picture of Alexander I have seen. Cameron shows a great understanding of the whole cultural setting, and it makes whole world of difference. He also obviously spent a great time thinking about Alexander's personality. I am glad that he did not join the cheap stream that pictures him as very feminine and gay. I think that the narcissism, related ability to manipulate people around him, and god- megalomania fits the character much better.800bc-476ad_classical_antiquity calibre historical-fiction ...more9 s Robin Carter515 69

Review

Reading this book put me in mind of the Jean-Paul Sartre quote

"I have crossed the seas, I have left cities behind me,
and I have followed the source of rivers towards their
source or plunged into forests, always making for other
cities. I have had women, I have fought with men ; and
I could never turn back any more than a record can spin
in reverse. And all that was leading me where ?
To this very moment..."

Because in this book I have crossed seas, I have climbed mountains forded rivers in flood, I have fought on foot and horseback, I have laid siege and made lightning strikes, I have bestrode Greece and Persia as a God, as a trooper and as a commander, I have loved, I have lived, I have made and lost friends, comrades, kin, brothers in arms and family...All these I have had because of the brilliance that is Christian Cameron's God of War.

I will admit, I am a fan of his work, I will admit that I love the time period and that Alexander and Parmenio are among my favourite characters in history and Fictional history (Thanks to David Gemmell and Lion of Macedon).

But even taking that into account this is still the finest Historical Fiction title I have read to date, and I read a hell of a lot of them.

Where I work I always tell my new starters that you don't learn true understanding of the work by reading the text, you learn by doing the work. This in my opinion is why Christians books stand out so far from the crowd, he does the book reading research, but then he challenges it with his re-enactment, and he experiences it with his re-enactment, and who can write the more accurate description? the man who has it second or third hand or the man who has experienced every moment of pleasure and pain himself.

This Story is Alexander as you have not read it before, told by Ptolemy as you have never heard him before. You meet so many favourites from the tyrant series its a never ending joy of surprises on the most epic journey in ancient history.

There are very few books or storytellers that could leave me disgusted with a character, humiliated by a character, horrified at a piece of action or in tears at the conclusion of a battle or fight.

The only problem Christian has with this book, is how does he beat it?

Far and away my book of the year.

(Parm) historical-fiction7 s Kareem43 15

Utterly brilliant!

This book takes you all the way through Alexander's life through the telling of his lifelong companion Ptolemy.

Firstly I feel the need to congratulate Mr Cameron on undertaking such a herculean (appropriate!) task. Truly, when I consider the research, time, differing opinions, and popularity of Alexander, and the many impressive people he was involved with, the enormity of the challenge would have me fleeing as if I stood against a Macedonian phalanx by myself.

It is not the book one expects. By this I mean that Alexander is by no means a 'hero', in fact he isn't even able a lot of the time, but he is nevertheless remarkable. And that is what makes Cameron's interpretation of Alexander so brilliant. The author himself explains in his notes that he believes Alexander was a Greek Hitler of sorts. Not an unreasonable assumption given that he conquered and never ruled. That said, you can't help but be impressed by the feats of the man and his accomplishments.

But here is where Christian really shines. There is no repetitiveness in the many famous battles. Each one brings new challenges, successes, and failures, and it is all done in an efficient and economical way (don't get me wrong, the book is huge, but I suspect it could have easily been double its size). But what made this book better than other interpretations of Alexander's that I've read is how believable these victories came across. Without wishing to spoil it for anyone will say no more other than Christian's time in the US military and his passion for re-enacting (especially ancient Greek) really makes a difference. If you've lived it, you can tell it I guess.

In terms of character the story evolves naturally and as you would expect. It is very much the whole, 'power corrupts, and absolute power...'

Anyway, for such a huge book I never found it lulled, and while it isn't all battles, it was never disinteresting. I know I shouldn't as it is a work of fiction but I have a new found love and admiration for (Cameron's version) of Ptolemy, and can only hope he decides he fancies writing about the ensuing conflicts between Alexander's generals after his death. PLEASE!!!!!

All in all a thoroughly enjoyable book, well researched, never stale or patronising and top to bottom exciting.

Highly recommended.7 s Chris 585 13

This is a great interpretation of the life to Alexander from a writer at the top of his game. any version of the life of someone from the ancient world there are many things that can be debated. Some won't the high number of battle scenes and the amount of gore, but my answer to that is how can you possibly write an even slightly realistic account of the life of a man whose whole adult life revolved around war and conquest without out it? It would be writing about the life of a famous chef without describing their cooking. Others may object to the use of modern swearing by the soldiers, but the reality is we simply don't know what words they used, whilst soldiers everywhere we can be sure they swore " troopers". To me these things help make the story more not less believable.
At seven hundred and sixty fives pages the book is massive and certainly not for the faint hearted. There were times during the reading of it when I thought that it might have been better to divide it up into several books. However, having finished it I've decided it was better to have it all in one volume, as it gives a sense of overview to Alexander's life that you don't get from the historical fiction that covers his life as a trilogy, which. Many fine authors have done in the past.
Another strong positive of the book is Cameron's understanding of the chaos that occurs in battle and the part that luck plays in its outcome. I'm not sure whether this comes from his involvement in historical recreations, historical scholarship, or his own experience in the military,but it gives the book a much more realistic feel feel than much historical fiction that is written by those who either glorify war or try to avoid its nastiness altogether.
So if you want a realistic and gritty interpretation of the life of Alexander then this is a book for you.ancient-world historical-fiction7 s Arun Divakar799 396

A very deep exploration of the legacy of Alexander the Great and his conquests. The narrator of the story is Ptolemy who has a ringside view of Alexander's life from cradle to grave.

What I really found amusing and engaging about the whole book was in how unflattering the portrayal of Alexander was. It is a sort of balanced approach of showing him as a charming, brilliant and legendary warrior while also showing his manipulative, egoistical and maniacal side. The battles are savage and full of gore which is to say that this is not a story that glorifies battle and conquest. Ptolemy grows from a rookie raging for wars into a cynical, sarcastic and grizzled veteran. This disillusionment also helps him form a rather grounded view of Alexander. While God of War sounds good on the title, the reality of Alexander according to this novel was far more brutal and unforgiving.

Ptolemy makes a good narrator – he has failings and he acknowledges them and there are character traits of him that propel the story onward.

My only concern here was that this story could have been edited a bit more. The book is close to 800 pages long and a good 100 pages could have been trimmed out.
5 s Denise6,797 124

The life of Alexander the Great, in all the many different interpretations offered by different writers and historians, has been a topic of intense fascination for me for a long time. This novel was engaging, brilliantly written and absolutely epic - a great piece of historical fiction that I surely haven't read for the last time.favourites own read-20125 s Daniel KellyAuthor 2 books127

this is an absolute monster of a book at over 42 hours of happy listening on audible, providing amazing value for money. as always Christian is one of the very best in the business with his immaculate research and writing, and Peter Noble proves himself as one of the most capable narrators in the business where you can actually see the older ptolomy on a couch telling this story to his young audience. for me, the only downside was quite how quickly the "this is audible" part cut in almost cutting off Alexander's last words3 s John35 2

I wound up giving up on this around page 300/325. First, it's too long; it should have been cut into several novels, then he wouldn't have had to slam the last year and a half of ATG's life into the last 100 pages. (Yes, I skimmed ahead before giving up.) So it's poorly organized, to begin with.

Characterization is a problem. I DO the character of Ptolemy. Yet aside from Ptolemy (and Thais), I had issues with his characterizations. Alexander is inconsistent, but as we're never in Alexander's head, we don't really know why.

Yet the biggest problem with characterization is Cameron's tendency to "potted summaries" that aren't then borne out in how the characters subsequently behave. Yes, I realize this is first person, but SHOW, don't tell, and if your show doesn't match your tell, readers do *notice*. One good example is his treatment of Hephaistion, who, within the first 30 pages, Ptolemy describes as a "bitch queen" (maybe not the best term, as he's also described as Alexander's lover?). Yet the character is never *shown* to do anything that terrible. In fact, he's rather loyal. If he does do bad things, it's past what I read. So the description just seemed ... (wait for it) ... unnecessarily *bitchy* (and maybe a little homophobic).

Now, we get to my REAL critique. The military stuff. I'm a crazy Greek-American military history buff obsessed with Alexander, so I had high hopes for this novel, given what I'd read of Cameron's rep for military historicals and as a reenactor. Boy, was I disappointed.

He gets a lot of things wrong or partly wrong, sometimes even in simple spellings (it's hypaspiStAI, not hypaspitoi...figure out how to do a proper plural or quit trying to show off using Greek...and it's not a typo; he repeats the error). I expect he's read a lot, but maybe not the best stuff. Osprey isn't the place to look. I almost threw the book at a wall when he had Alexander integrating the Agrianians and the Hypaspists in the same file lines for march. Light-armed slingers and heavy-armed hoplites? WTF? Dude, maybe in combat they'd have some slingers seeded in the phalanx or screening them (obviously), but no, not in the dekas lines off the field. Fiction gets to be creative, but only to a realistic point. He needs a better reading list, starting with Heckel, Anson, Adams, Borza, and Willekes (for horses).

Also, Aegae is SOUTH of Pella, not north. Maps are good. That's a really big mistake to make. I don't think he's actually been to many of these places. Certainly Pella wasn't the backwater he portrays. Maybe, uh, visit the Pella Archaeological Museum? There's even stuff online if one can't afford to buy a plane ticket.

AND, I'm REALLY, REALLY tired of people writing Alexander who portray Philip as a bumbling idiot (psst, read Ellis and Borza), and Olympias as a bitch (psst, read Carney). It's possible to make Alexander talented without making Philip tyrannical or incompetent. That might mean thinking hard about the really confusing narrative of Philip's last couple years. There's some good articles out there about it, and on Philip's murder. Man, if I read this stuff and I'm not even writing a book, why isn't he?

Last, the language issue. He should drop a lot of the modern colloquial slang. It jars. It's possible to write something more in the period and still sound natural. (Uh, read Harry Turtledove.) Pressfield does this same damn thing and I really dis it. It's okay to use some swear words, the f-bomb, which they also employed. But be careful.

Anyway, the novel is full of these sorts of mistakes and biases. He did research; that's obvious. But it feels either half-baked or rushed. I stopped trying to keep track of the mistakes. So please stop reviewing him he's God's gift to military historicals, or at least to Alexander novels. I probably won't read any of his other stuff, after this one. As I said, I was disappointed.

I'm still waiting for somebody who really knows his or her shit to write about Alexander.
alexander-the-great2 s Rob50 186

This is my first Christian Cameron novel, and I come to new historical fiction authors with a great deal of wariness. There's too much shlock out there in the genre - from hack war porn to anachronistic romanticism. However, Cameron really knows his stuff, and makes few concessions to modern sensibilities in this thorough account of the military exploits and obsessions of Alexander the Great, told as the reminiscences of Ptolemy, one of his childhood Macedonian friends, and later the founder of a dynasty in Egypt.

Given Cameron's background as a military officer and ancient war re-enactor, it's no surprise that this hefty novel focuses on the training and composition of Alexander's military machine, and the great campaigns, battles, and sieges that marked Alexander's meteoric life. We learn of the demanding and cruel upbringing of Ptolemy as one of King Philip's pages, and the deadly intrigue around the Macedonian court in Pella. It's a tribute to Cameron's skills as a writer that he sustains suspense about the outcome of the factionalism, even though we know the historical outcome.

Then it's off to war, where Cameron's offers a convincing depiction of Alexander's growing megalomania and war-madness. It's harder to maintain narrative suspense here, as Alexander's campaign in Asia will be ly be familiar to most readers. By the time Alexander and his army are crossing the Indus, we are as weary of the campaign as the grumbling Macedonian veterans.

For historical fiction of a military bent, this is a well-written novel. While the text often succumbs to pedantic accounts of military formations, and Cameron can't seem to restrain himself from demonstrating his thorough knowledge of the tactics and equipment of the era, the prose is fine and the dialog and characterizations strong for genre fiction.

However, editing errors abound, from glaring proofing oversights, to Cameron's linguistic ticks that crop up again and again ("you just try it' after every tough military maneuver, and "Macedon, eh?" to point out the brutality the Macedonian, over and over and over again). There's a better novel waiting within for a more careful re-write to draw out.

A more substantial problem is how Cameron builds his Ptolemy into a super-ass-kicking-warrior-genius-lover. Given his survival of the Successor Wars with a secure control of Egypt, it's ly that Ptolemy was a very clever man. Cameron has Alexander call Ptolemy 'his Odysseus.' Which is apt. And no doubt a man given the the brutal and war upbringing of a royal page in Macedon would be a fierce fighter in the field. But Cameron lays Ptolemy's excellence on too thick. He is a wise and considerate master of slaves, a cunning and beloved officer, a brilliant cavalry scout, deadly in hand-to-hand combat, brave above all others, willing to speak truth to power, and lover to the most beautiful and intelligent courtesan of the era. There isn't a major campaign, battle, or siege where Ptolemy isn't there at the crucial moment to save the day with desperate courage or masterful insight. It gets tiresome.

This is historical fiction told well, with excitement and veracity. Cameron's depiction of a power-mad Alexander leading a brutal regime is a refreshing corrective to the hero-worship we typically find in accounts of these figures. However, his shrewd treatment of Alexander is undermined by the over-the-top wish fulfillment of his Ptolemy. He's a compelling enough character without making him out to be a super-heroic protagonist. This characterization did mar an otherwise strong historical novel, but Cameron showed enough here as a novelist and expert on ancient Greece that I intend to follow up with his other series on the era.2 s Bryn HammondAuthor 14 books374 Read

On pause at p.430. I found a lot of interest in the account of their youth--with a real sense of excitement as the young guns take over their fathers' world. Have to confess though there isn't enough psychology for my s, and won't be. And I'm afraid I'm going off the voice of our first-person Ptolemy, to whom I used to be sympathetic. In short I d their youth, but I knew this was never the style for me.
imagined-fiction2 s Peter Ryan8 2

Although there are as many differing opinions about Alexander as there are centuries since his death, I find this book both capable of bringing that era alive and, alas, an opinion of Alexander that I disagree with.
This made my appreciation of a superb novel somewhat marred, but nevertheless I recommend it highly.historical-novels2 s Lance Watson1 review

Fantastic interpretation of Alexander's life that does a great job of telling us what life might have been , taking all the stuff we do know and filling in the gaps of stuff we don't. Taking artistic license in places but always remaining true to the style of the time. Want to know what the conquest of Asia might have been ? This is the book for you.2 s Philip Ryan2 3

Great book with a slightly different take

Just finished this and thought Cameron got the cadence bang on. He spent quite a bit of time exploring Alexander's adolescence and rise before getting into the Persian conquest. And he shows him to a deeply flawed, albeit brilliant, character. All in all, a great read. 2 s Daryl27

Promised much. 500 pages too long for me. 2 s jjmann3485 11

Alexander: God of War is a massive novel, following Alexander III of Macedonia through his conquests of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Persia, and beyond. It is a huge tale, told through the eyes of his close friend and general, Ptolemy. There are countless battle scenes and sieges, and death, trauma, and injury feature throughout the tale. In addition, the reader is treated with casual reflections from Ptolemy as he sits on the Pharoah's throne in his old age.

I really d the story -- Alexander's tour on this earth was indeed marvelous. Author Cameron brings such gritty detail as well, not just by research but also from someone who helps recreate the brutal conditions of ancient combat. But the book's length, while one if its greatest achievements, it is also its shortcoming. If it was possible in a 1,000 page work, some scenes seem hurried, almost an afterthought, and deep character development was lacking. At other times, some trivial scenes seem to plod along for far too long. I can't say I know why the book wasn't cut into several different novels, but I think that would have helped me digest it and take it in for its wonderousness a bit better.

At any rate, this book is still a great read, particularly those who love historical fiction and learning about ancient battles.ancient-greece historical-fiction india ...more1 Kirk Macleod148 1 follower

Christian Cameron's God of War: A Novel of Alexander the Great (2012) is the last on my list of historical fiction set in Ancient Greece to focus on the Macedonian King during his life. Although I've still got six more books to go (and another by Cameron), this was the last to deal Alexander as a living man, rather than the legend he became.

For me, the novel had a lot of great strengths; putting the perspective character as his general Ptolemy was an excellent way to view the character from a different perspective (much as Mary Renault did in The Persian Boy) and also to slyly write a novel about the (arguably) greatest successor of Alexander, the battle scenes (as with all of Cameron's books I've read to date) were phenomenal, and the turning points in Alexander's life, where he goes from boy to man, man to king, and king to emperor, and at significant personal cost, were really striking to see from the point of view of a good childhood friend.

My biggest problem with the book was actually the length; at just under 900 pages it was fairly massive and I thought it could have either been pared down considerably or split into two novels, either way would have been fine by me, but I think that the narrative would also have moved better in either situation.

A really fun read, but perhaps not the first book I'd recommend for someone who wanted to read more about Alexander the Great.1 Clemens Schoonderwoert1,165 106

This amazing book by Christian Cameron tells the tale of Alexander the Great, son of King Philip of Macedon, who while living and fighting from boyhood to death he will rise in the eyes of the common people from King to God.
The book has been thoroughly researched by the author, for it gives us a great insight of the life and determination of the man to become invincible, and so fulfilling his dreams and destiny to become the greatest man on earth.
The storytelling is absolutely wonderful and the story itself is narrated by Alexander's boyhood friend Ptolemy, King of Egypt.
The story is a very life tale of an extraordinary man, Alexander the Great, and the story is set as from 344 BC until his death at around 323 BC.
Real characters and great battle scenes are brought to us in a most thrilling way, very much so that they will really keep you captivated from beginning to end.
This is truly an extraordinary effort by the author to bring vivdly to life the heroics, the cruelty and most of all the glory of this exceptional fighting man, Alexander the Great.
Very much recommended, for this is absolutely a massive achievement and certainly a most spectacular effort resulting in this "Magnificent Epic Read"!1 Eurydicegirlgmail.Com76 8

sharply focused, accurate character study of Alexander

IÂ’ve studied Greek classics, military history in antiquity, the Ptolemy dynasty, Seleucid and the confusing history following AlexanderÂ’s death. IÂ’ve read history my entire life, not that I claim expertise or deep understanding.

This work explores the psychology of Alexander and his aristocratic peers, warrior training, the collision of asiatic and Greek cultures.
Cameron deftly portrays the ruthless arena of courtier competition, the generational tension inherent in dynastic succession.

Selecting Ptolemy to tell this extraordinary saga in retrospect is brilliant.
Of all the fictional portrayals of Alexander and Macedon this is hands down the most plausible and successful reconstruction of both Alexander and the Grecian world view during this era.

Cameron is good.


Highly recommend.
1 Pablo Alavi14

Tenía mucha ilusión después de haber leído la saga Africanus de que esta sería así de emocionante...
Pues sinceramente la encuentro aburrida y me canso bastante leyendo. Siento que no podré continuar y dejaré el libro, ya le di varias oportunidades por que no me atrapa la historia ni la forma que se cuenta... (voy pagina 123)
Bueno, dejaré a Alejandro descansar en Paz... después de todo parece ser un gran general incluso reconocido por Aníbal y Escipion...1 LOL_BOOKS2,817 54 Read

THE LAST ONE I STARTED WAS CHRISTIAN CAMERON'S GOD OF WAR, WHICH SEEMED PROMISING SINCE IT WAS FROM PTOLEMY'S POV AND I LIKE PTOLEMY, BUT THEN I GOT TO THE PART WHERE HE GOES "HEPHAISTION WAS A BITCH QUEEN AND ALEXANDER ONLY L'D HIM BECAUSE HE REMINDED HIM OF HIS MOM" AND I NOPED OUT.fiction historical-fiction war1 Camille Siddartha295 31

goodread1 Ned Ludd755 16

4.5*. I have never read a book with so many battle scenes. This is not a bad thing.1 Lon76

Epic long journey. Well done. Recommend. 1 Sergio34

No lo he terminado, he decidido dejar el último tercio sin leer porque llevo muchos días obligándome a seguir sin disfrutarlo, por lo tanto aquí me bajo.

Tal y como reza el prólogo: sabemos más de la superficie de Marte que de la vida de Alejandro Magno. El autor narra la historia de Alejandro desde que era un paje real hasta su muerte. Lo hace a través de Tolomeo, uno de los generales de Alejandro y rey de Egipto, el cual nos van narrando su historia años después de que Alejandro haya muerto.

Como digo, se tiene muy poca información de como sucedieron muchos acontecimientos en la vida de Alejandro, por lo que el autor intenta reconstruirlo lo mejor posible teniendo en cuenta costumbres, tradiciones y personajes de la época.

Reproduce bastante bien la figura de Alejandro: su personalidad, su forma de dirigir las tropas, su ego... me parece una aproximación realista (teniendo en cuenta lo poco que sabemos sobre él) y más acertada que otras obras donde acentúan bastante más su faceta "femenina". Aún así hay algunas partes donde hay mucho relleno sólo para dejar bien claro cual era su comportamiento ante ciertas situaciones.

Esta es la parte del libro que más me ha gustado. Ahora viene lo malo y lo que me ha hecho dejarlo: las partes donde hay batalla y se describen formaciones, movimientos y marchas de los ejércitos; que son bastante numerosas.

No sé si será cosa de la traducción al castellano, pero es muy confuso. En muchas ocasiones se describen movimientos inverosímiles de la falange macedonia para dar a entender que eran las únicas tropas de la época capaces de maniobrar con tanta disciplina y precisión, pero la forma en la que se explica da la sensación de que están jugando al Twister en el campo de batalla; es imposible imaginar los movimientos y el posicionamiento que intenta describir el autor. Lo peor de esto es que los macedonios ganan muchas batallas haciendo gala de estas maniobras, y al final no sabes qué carajo ha pasado, sólo que han ganado.

Todo esto, sumado a que la figura de Alejandro nunca me he apasionado, me ha hecho dejarlo sin terminar.i-can-t-finish-this Jeannie584

4.5 stars - a brilliant book:
- non-stop action (that you can 'see' it all from Cameron's from the descriptions)
- thorough research, bringing the past to life
- thoughtful asides worthy of a bottle of red wine and deep discussion, e.g.
After Darius dies:
‘Ptolemy,’ Alexander said. There was a question in his voice. ‘Is this . . . all there is?’
I should have said, YouÂ’ve traded friendship and love for adulation and power. What did you expect?
And
After Babylon fell (in the midst of such a boys own adventure of military conquest):
Babylon was utterly ours. While I’d lingered in fever, I now understood, Eumenes the Cardian, Alexander???s military secretary, had outmanoeuvred Callisthenes for control of the Military Journal, and Thaïs supported him. Harpalus was involved somehow, as well, and Babylon was their shared triumph. They had the priests from the first – Eumenes won over the nobles, and Harpalus brought the commons. I still find it interesting that the treasurer, the secretary and the hetaera (courtesan) took a city of a million men without a fight. I thought about things that Aristotle had discussed with us, things I’d relearned on the couches of Athenian symposia. About the contracts between governed and governing. About what victory and defeat are, in war.

And just a counter thought for the readers who (correctly) said how looooong the book is and that it would have been better edited down:
Yes it is long and in the middle a bit of a slog through battle after battle - but surely that's the point? That was what Alexander's soldiers suffered: Alexander would have gone on fighting forever - and eventually they all just wanted to go home.
The way the book is written, I too 'felt' the excitement of early victories drain through boredom into ultimate revulsion.
As a writing technique, I thought it was brilliant. Ethan Brandon3

Autor del comentario:
=================================