Although this book is pretty big; it is well researched and incredibly informative although pretty heavy on the military history.

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.

The author's style of writing is clear and direct, but not as dry as many historical works. The text provides extensive information about Philip, Alexander, and the key people who surrounded them. It also provides context for understanding and evaluating the historical sources about them. An excellent book for thosewho love ancient history.

Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

It was fascinating and informative. I read it slowly as there was plenty to understand and, even if I assumed I knew something about Alexander, I discovered I just scraped the surface and knew the basic.
This is an erudite book, you understand that the author know what he's writing about, and it wasn't always easy as I felt like I was back to university and preparing a history exam.
Even if it's erudite it's never dry or boring. The author is a talented storyteller and always kept my attention.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine

"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.

I really enjoyed reading this history book 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.

Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.

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.

A book that gives equal weight to Philip and the intrigues of the Macedonian court in solidifying his power over the Greek city states which were unable to unite against him. The book delves into Alexander's battles and short rule, but neglects his personal relationships especially with his mother and his close male companions. It's ok to acknowledge his sexuality in 2020.

Nonetheless, it is important to see some updated scholarship on the impact both of these men had in creating the Hellenistic age.

Will place order for college library.

i really enjoyed reading this history book, you could tell that the author had done his research and had passion for the topic. I enjoyed learning about Phillip and Alexander.

4 1/2 stars. Alexander the Great. One of the few people who deserve the name The Great in history. Appropriately enough there are a great number of books about him and new ones keep being produced. There are no new sources of information; the ancient sources are at the latest from the second or third centuries C.E. and some before that. So why another new book? What does this offer that many others don't?

This is two well done and very thorough narrative histories in one book: a history of Philip, the father of Alexander and the one who set the groundwork for what Alexander later achieved and a history of Alexander. Each history is focused on that person with mention of the other only when appropriate. Philip is not just a sketch or a prelude to Alexander, even though his section is shorter. That is because there is less information about Philip than Alexander out there. Philip is given just as much detailed attention and the greatness of his achievements acknowledged as Alexander is given. As the author has indicated, having the two histories in one book, allows the reader to place them in context and see their similarities and differences in behavior, rule and warfare.


Goldsworthy has supported his thorough research with endnotes and an extensive bibliography. He has not limited himself to just two or three of the ancient sources, as some scholars do, but he has done a critical analysis of the sources and has acknowledged the weakness of them; he has said when certain information is incorrect or is probably exaggerated. Goldsworthy has also pointed out when there isn't information about a subject or time period and has identified where there has been quite a bit of conjectures by scholars and there wasn't the information to support these. Goldsworthy has tried to put Alexander in his time without modern judgment and has been mostly successful in that endeavor.

Women have only left a faint imprint in written sources in history. However, Alexander's mother, Olympias, was one of the few women in Ancient Greece who was mentioned and there are many stories about her which Goldsworthy has included and tried to put in perspective for she was not treated kindly by ancient sources. The writer has also stated how Antipater and Olympias were able to work together on a few occasions in the governing of Macedon and the city-states of Greece after Alexander left for Persia but most of the time they clashed. This has amounted to only a few sentences and since there have been so few references to women influencing history I wish it was fleshed out more and that would have given a better idea of the strong personality that was Olympias in actual events instead of just inflammatory stories for she was part of the influences that shaped Alexander.

Is this for the general casual reader? Probably not. The reader doesn't need any special knowledge but this is a thorough narrative history of two military men who spent of most of their adult lives on campaign so there are a lot of battles described which may be boring for some people; there is also a lot of sex, infidelity, betrayal, arguments and murder that would give any reality TV show a run for its money. This is for the reader who is interested in history and/or someone who wants to know more than a short overview of two of the pivotal people in ancient Western civilization.

Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest revivew.

As everyone knows, I’m always on the lookout for a new book about antiquity, in particular anything having to do with Alexander the Great. This particular figure has always sort of cast a spell on me, perhaps because he’s become something of a queer icon.
So, when I saw that NetGalley had a copy of noted historian Adrian Goldsworthy’s new dual biography of Alexander the Great and his father Philip II, I knew that I had to get a copy for review.
As its title implies, this is a book that is very much about both Alexander and Phillip. Indeed, the book’s most noteworthy contribution to the already vast library of books about Alexander the Great is its dual emphasis on the father and the son. Poor Philip always seems to get short-shrift in the history books, the curse of having a son who would become one of the most famous men from antiquity. As Goldsworthy documents, however, were it not for Philip and his efforts to consolidate his power in both Macedonia and Greece, it’s very unlikely that Alexander would have been able to accomplish even a fraction of what he ultimately did.
In fact, one can’t help but admire Philip for his tenacity, his political skill, and his military abilities. Indeed, it’s something of a miracle that he managed to survive the cutthroat world of the Argead court for as long as he did, particularly since so many of his predecessors were cut down by those closest to them. Having managed to ascend to the throne, Philip set about forging Macedonia into a formidable force, and the book documents the way that he managed to first defeat the various tribes that sought to exploit Macedonia, before moving on to Greece. Philip’s genius was that he was able to take advantage of the Greek city-states’ chronic unwillingness to band together. By the time they realized just how much of a threat this “barbarian” was, it was far too late.
Philip’s great misfortune is that his perception in the present has been shaped by Hollywood’s representation of him. Two major films have so far been made about the life of Alexander, one in the 1950s and one in the early 2000s. In both cases, Philip comes across as a debauched sot unable to carry a sword or control what’s going on in his own home. By the time he’s cut down during a ceremony, it almost comes as a relief. Fortunately, Goldsworthy’s book goes a long way toward correcting this perception, allowing us to see the man in all of his complexity.
One of the book’s other great strengths is that it does give a pretty thorough examination of the broader world into which Philip was born, particularly Athens. Of all the city-states, this most famous city-state had arguably the most vexed relationship with the Macedonian king, due in no small part to the inveterate hatred born toward Philip by the famed and influential orator Demosthenes. We also get a glimpse into the workings of Macedonian court life which, Goldsworthy points out, centered around the king and his nobles. Understanding these contexts is vital for grasping the type of ruler that Philip went on to be. Personally, I would have liked to see more of these parts of the book, particularly since such context is so important to understanding Philip’s and Alexander’s role on the geopolitical stage.
When it comes to Alexander, however, the book falls a bit flat. Goldsworthy seems to have an almost pathological avoidance of anything having to do with Alexander’s personal life, and so those looking for illumination about the great man’s relationships with his mother Olympias, his friend and lover Hephaistion, or his lover and confidant Bagoas the eunuch are certain to be disappointed. Unlike almost every other historian I’ve read on the subject, Goldsworthy refuses to accept that Alexander had deeply physical relationships with men, and even at the end he can only bring himself to refer to Hephaistion as his dearest friend (he has a similarly prudish attitude toward Achilles and Patroclus). While his rationale for doing so is sound as far as it goes — we simply can’t know for sure whether the relationship was sexual — it does at times seem as if Goldsworthy is letting his own prejudices regarding same-sex eroticism color his understanding of Alexander.
What the book lacks in exploration of Alexander’s personal life it more than makes up for in discussions of battles, soldiers, and tactics. Quite frankly, I find those parts of the book the least enjoyable, mostly because I’m just not that much of a fan of military history. However, for those who want a detailed analysis of Alexander’s military exploits, particularly one he crosses into Persia and begins his conquest of that mighty, sprawling empire, this book more than fits the bill.
Throughout the book, Goldsworthy is very open about the fact that there is much that we don’t know about Alexander and his life. The sources are often written many years after his death. This is, of course, the danger in writing a narrative history about people who lived several millennia ago, but there were times when I began to wish that Goldsworthy would just move on from the constant uncertainty and tell the story that he wants to tell.
That being said, I found the concluding chapters to be the most compelling, in part because they make a convincing case for the need to continue exploring the lives of these two men. For better and worse, Philip and Alexander fundamentally reshaped the world that they found. Alexander in particular would cast a huge shadow over the rest of antiquity, and prominent men like Julius Caesar and Augustus would continue to yearn to achieve the same level of greatness (and, in Goldsworthy’s estimation, fail).
For the most part, I enjoyed this book. It’s a useful account of the lives of two of the ancient world’s most important rulers, men whose fame continues to shine down through the millennia.

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.

A great insight in to the history of Philip and Alexander. Easy to read and flows nicely, you don't need to be a Classics lover to enjoy this book.. I have studied Alexander a great (no pun intended) deal and was stoked to stumble upon this to learn more about his father and the story before he became Alexander the Great. It's actually quite an inspirational read.

I absolutely love history and this is something I really didn't know that much about. This was a very good look at it and I felt like it was explained in such a way that didn't leave the reader confused.

Brilliant parallel biography and historical study of Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great and their conquers and visions of the world.
Despite the fact that Philip was a king of just minor kingdom he suceeded and his legacy helped his son to become the Great one.

Must read.