Rating: 
Summary: A good introduction...
Review: A fascinating first look for the layman at an incredible historic figure. The book takes the reader back to were history occurred, linking the past and present in a part of the world were roots run very deep. It is not the most thorough, nor the longest work on Alexander's life, and certainly don't use this book as your only source. However, if you are looking for an interesting introduction, that links wonderfully with the visuals of the PBS documentary based on the same material, then this is were you should start. If this book doesn't increase your interest in Alexander's story, then it's doubtful other works would either.
Rating: 
Summary: A great book
Review: Definitely the best book I've ever read about the ancient world. The author himself followed the trail of Alexander's journey. By doing this he is really able to tell alexander's story in an extraordinarily interesting way. I really felt like I was there riding along with Alexander when I read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: When Wood isn't being biased the book isn't bad
Review: However, I do resent the extremely one-sided view that he takes when presenting Alexander. Not only that, but his book is taken almost word for word from Plutarch's (historian circa 79 AD) account of Alexander. And despite the mass of propaganda that Plutarch presents (for example, he states as fact that Alexander is the son of Zeus), Wood's is even worse. Wood portrays Alexander as a man narcisstic in his self-adoration, picking favorites among flatterers, and betraying his comrades without cause. Wood later says, point blank, that Alexander is insane by the end of his journeys. As other readers have pointed out, there is also a slew of historical inaccuracies, the most glaring of which is his constant references to Macedonians as Greeks. Macedonians are NOT Greek, as any Greek can tell you. During Alexander's time the Macedonians adored the Greeks and considered themselves to be the same, but Greeks scorned their northern neighbors as barbarians.Even so, the thing that really irritated me about this book was Wood's constant talking about the journey he was taking. Perhaps it was more interesting on television, but I really don't care about the Arab man with two wives that Wood met in Tarsus when they have NOTHING to do with the story. I recommend reading online. It's a very good site that gives an unbiased viewpoint and presents all information about Alexander without telling the reader which portions to believe.
Rating: 
Summary: Lapses in Historical Accuracy
Review: I also agree that this book is one-sided for Wood had created serious lapses in historical accuracy. It is simply incorrect to call Alexander or his Macedonian army "Greek", when the ancient Greek and Roman historians made a clear distinction between the Greek and Macedonian nations. Alexander was known as Macedonian and had never been called "Greek" in any ancient text, and Wood should have represented him for what he was. Instead he left an inaccurate portrait of the famous conqueror ascribing him a false ethnicity and identity for which he was also sharply criticized by Archaeology in 1998.
Rating:
Summary: A round of applause for Wood
Review: I am 13 and in the seventh grade. Because I love history, I picked up this book and was captivated instantly. In spite of the negative reviews, I ventured to read it myself and it was well worth it. If you love history, Greek or Macedonian, this book is a must read.
Rating:
Summary: Alexander: a military genius and a weak cruel human being.
Review: I enjoyed Michael Wood's documentary for being in-depth, hands-on and on-site work on history. Wood did a fine job of presenting Alexander the Great as a military genius, a daring risk taker and a war hero. Which seems to describe the greatness of Alexander. He showed us Alexander the human being who was no human at all based on supporting Greek sources. He killed his own half-brother and stepmother as well as many of his own closest allies. Wood presented Alexander as the Dhul Qaranein (the two-horned) mentioned in Quran, the Muslim holy book. This is proven to be wrong. Dhul Qaranein is Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire. It is hard to believe Wood went to Persepolis and Passaragadae and did not notice the two-horned relief of Cyrus the Great. There are several credible sources proving Cyrus was the Dhul Qaranein. Jamshid Varza
Rating:
Summary: A one-sided view of a great general
Review: I have to admit I read this book with great expectations. I thoroughly enjoy reading about ancient history. I was to be greatly disappointed. The only reason I give this book a "3" rating is because of the interesting commentary on the terrain Mr. Wood & co. went over to retrace Alexander's steps and the wonderful photographs. The author seems to have a decidedly "Persian" or "non-Greek" view. He accepts without hesitation the views of the indigenous peoples from the regions Alexander conquered and any greek accounts of Alexander that are negative, while being 'a priori' suspicious of any pro-Alexander view given. Mr. Wood calls these first-hand reports propaganda, dismissing them outright. I would recommend anyone wanting a balanced view of the great general Alexander to read "Alexander the Great and His Time" by Agnes Savill. I would also suggest that Mr. Wood read it as well.
Rating:
Summary: A one-sided view of a great general
Review: I have to admit I read this book with great expectations. I thoroughly enjoy reading about ancient history. I was to be greatly disappointed. The only reason I give this book a "3" rating is because of the interesting commentary on the terrain Mr. Wood & co. went over to retrace Alexander's steps and the wonderful photographs. The author seems to have a decidedly "Persian" or "non-Greek" view. He accepts without hesitation the views of the indigenous peoples from the regions Alexander conquered and any greek accounts of Alexander that are negative, while being 'a priori' suspicious of any pro-Alexander view given. Mr. Wood calls these first-hand reports propaganda, dismissing them outright. I would recommend anyone wanting a balanced view of the great general Alexander to read "Alexander the Great and His Time" by Agnes Savill. I would also suggest that Mr. Wood read it as well.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent reading, and very entertaining
Review: I have to say that this is great work. I feel more younger people should read this (and watch the video series) and get a better understanding of the size of Alexander's expedition and accomplishments. .... The ancient Greeks did consider the Macedonians as a Greek tribe. Some people like to point to Demosthenes' Phillipic speeches as proof of the "barbarian" attitude of the Greeks toward the Macedonians. That's misleading. Demosthenes was deathly afraid of the loss of Athenian supremacy and power if Phillip became the leader of the unified Greek states. Other Athenian politicians did not see him that way. Political rivalries were not anything new to the politically independent ancient Greeks. A closer look at Arrian and Plutarch indicates very well how these ancient historians viewed the Macedonians as Greek. Anyway, this is good work. Bravo to Mr. Wood.
Rating:
Summary: Michael Woods Rules!
Review: I teach Global History and Studies. As a teacher, I used over and over Woods excellent series Legacy. They are the best on the Early Civilizations of the World. I was excited and not the least bit disappointed that he was the man involved in the Footsteps of Alexander the Great project. The video is incredible and this book is a very useful companion. The book is good, i use parts of it in class...however If you have not seen all the parts of the Video, you must. He is crazy. Woods is a great historian who is also fun to watch.
| 
