Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyed it as a Layman
Review: Very interesting and detailed look at the routes taken, the acts, and influences left behind by this historically powerful figure who left such and indelible mark. He also died at only age 33.Although brutal, he was an adventurous traveler and enjoyed the many delights of wine, women & song. Michael Wood provides and ample supply of photos and maps to detail the routes he and Alexander took. I am not a historian, so I can't corroborate all the details for accuracy. As a history laymen I can say I enjoyed what I read and I admit my lack of knowledge in this area. For those interested in the area, I think you may find it worth reading, and then you can take what you want from that point on.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed it as a Layman
Review: Very interesting and detailed look at the routes taken, the acts, and influences left behind by this historically powerful figure who left such and indelible mark. He also died at only age 33. Although brutal, he was an adventurous traveler and enjoyed the many delights of wine, women & song. Michael Wood provides and ample supply of photos and maps to detail the routes he and Alexander took. I am not a historian, so I can't corroborate all the details for accuracy. As a history laymen I can say I enjoyed what I read and I admit my lack of knowledge in this area. For those interested in the area, I think you may find it worth reading, and then you can take what you want from that point on.
Rating: 
Summary: A Fractured but Recognizable Alexander
Review: Why did Alexander and his men risk their lives across so many continents and seas to mingle with the exotic peoples of Africa and Asia? The question intrigues most of us but British journalist and filmmaker Michael Wood takes a more active approach by brushing aside the texts and retracing Alexander's itinerary with a BBC camera crew. Illustrious scholars like Sir Aurel Stein had done it before, albeit for only a part of the route, but unattended by any Media hype. Another Englishman, Thomas Coryat (AD 1616), thought he had seen relics of Alexander in India. He was greatly impressed by a magnificent (Asokan) pillar and presumed that it must have been erected by Alexander the Great 'in token of his victorie' over Porus. Wood does not know that Coryat was right, that the Delhi-Topra Pillar was indeed brought from the Beas area where Alexander had come.
Wood's overflowing energy leaves us stunned - he retraces Alexander's journey by car, on horseback and camel, by boat, and at times on foot, yet his hyperbole often betrays a rather obtuse prognosis. He naively accepts the negative views of some Greeks and of the people conquered by Alexander but remains suspicious of any pro-Alexander view, labelling these as propaganda. Ignoring the Sanskrit or Pali sources, he tries to reconstruct Alexander using only the Greek and Roman texts. He rightly says "Alexander's conquest of most of the known world was a crucial turning point in history which opened up contacts between Europe and Asia, paved the way for the Roman Empire and the spread of Islam, and unleashed astonishing historical energies that continue to affect the world today", but misses probably the most important component - Buddhism. Toynbee noted the close links between Buddhism and Hellenism and Tarn gave the clue that the Brahmans(the priestly party opposed to the Buddhists) always fought with Alexander. Moreover wood misses that the real name of Calanus, Alexander's Guru, was Sphines which is the same as Aspines or Asvaghosa, the great Buddhist scholar. As Coryat realized, some of the Asokan pillars were in fact altars of Alexander. Wood has not understood why Plutarch wrote that Alexander's altars were considered to be sacred even by the Mauryas. Ignoring the usual Dionysius-Semiramis stories Wood boldy ponders why Alexander took the most dangerous route through Gedrosia, suffering huge casualties (both civilian and military) from lack of water, food, and the extreme heat. He plays with the theory that Alexander may have been exploring whether cities could be founded along the coastline for trade between the India and the Persian Gulf. The simple answer here is that Alexander was chasing the mighty Moeris who was in fact Chandragupta Maurya of Prasii ([another website]). Wood does not even dream that part of the Gulf area in those days could have been part of India. Why did Alexander celebrate his victory over the Indians at Kahnuj? Interestingly, although Wood does not recognize Moeris, unlike most modern writers and even Tarn, he suspects that both Hephaistion and Alexander may have been poisoned by a group of Alexander's 'exasperated and disillusioned' senior officers (p. 230). He describes a Zoroastrian temple in Iran where he learns that Alexander is regarded as a devil and called Iskander Gujaste but does not realize that Alexander's enemies united under an anti-Buddhist Zoroastrian nationalist platform. The successes of both Perdiccas and Seleucus were due to the backing they got from Zoroastrian nationalists. Although Wood fails at the end to piece together a convincing real life Alexander, the book remains enjoyable on the whole.
Rating: 
Summary: Wrong Title and Serious Lapses in Historical Accuracy
Review: Wood had created serious lapses in historical accuracy. Alexander's journey wasn't from "Greece to Asia" as Wood puts it in his title, but from Macedonia to Asia. Non of the ancient historians wrote that the Macedonians left from Greece to counquer the world, but from Pella, Macedonia. 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", not in one single 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 for which he was anyways sharply criticized by Archaeology in 1998.
| 
