Empire of Ashes [Paperback]

After being disenchanted with Steven Pressfield's recent fictional foray into the Alexander legend, the temptation to take another plunge was irresistible. Although Empire of Ashes is a far better story, and quite a bit more imaginative than the Pressfield thing, it still fails to fully capture the essence of this truly remarkable historical figure.

From an historical standpoint, it is undisputed that Alexander had all of the qualities that made one a superb leader. First, he was a brilliant battlefield tactician, with a superior understanding of his weapons, from cavalry to infantry to siege capabilities; and he had an uncanny ability to come up with plans that utilized these strengths and exploited his enemy's weaknesses. Secondly, he was as fierce a warrior as anyone in his army, and was often in the vanguard of his forces at the critical, make-or-break moment of the battle. Lastly he was great motivator. Whether by speech or example, he was able to get his army to accomplish more than any military force in history to that time.

Nicastro's narrator, an Athenian who tagged along, deconstructs the Alexander legend in every way. To begin with, he wasn't a tactician at all. Instead, it was his half-wit, half-brother Arrideaus--whose presence has been wiped clean from history by Alexander's lieutenants-- who came up with his brilliant battle plans. Alexander's fierce demeanor on the battlefield is acknowledged, but it was a ferocity based on recklessness--a life-long, all-consuming death-wish--rather than leadership or bravery. And although he is given some credit for his motivational skills, we are told that his generals, particularly Parmenion, deserved at least as much credit. All of this is interesting conjecture and makes sense within the confines of the story, but it is certainly dispiriting to the reader, who, while not necessarily expecting to see Alexander portrayed as a god, was not expecting him to be portrayed as such an ineffectual boob either.

This is a shame because the novel otherwise contains some very nice moments. Here is the narrator's description of the eighteen-year old Alexander when he first meets him, after the battle of Chaeronea. He had, "fine, long hair," but with a, "stringy, oily quality of it which gave the impression of being perpetually wet . . . It fell in unrestrained sweeps around his face--a face that was not without a certain dignity, but coarse, big-boned, and full of pimples." This is the kind of thing that historical fiction aficionados love; a vivid bit of detail with the solid ring of truth, and something which is not ordinarily found in the history books.

He also comes up with plausible explanations for some of the legend and controversy which surrounds Alexander. For example, Alexander truly made an effort to untie the Gordian knot, but his slashing of it was not an act of genius, but instead of angry frustration in front of embarrassed onlookers, and he had to hack at it twenty times before severing it. His decision to burn Persepolis, the most splendid city in Persia, was made for no other reason than that it was suggested by a Greek strumpet during yet another drunken binge. There are dozens of other examples, all of which are clever and within the realm of credibility individually, but all of which, alas, cast Alexander in a less-than-favorable if not unsavory light. Taken as a whole, the picture they paint of him doesn't quite pass the smell test.

It's a good story, though, detailed and engrossing. It is not, however, the definitive fictional portrait of Alexander. For that we must continue to wait.

Wow, I get it - you don't like Alexander the Great! According to the author, Alexander was physically ugly, had a repulsive personality, and owed all his battlefield successes to his half-wit sibling. Not quite the same picture of Alexander that history has painted for us. Part of me wonders why anyone would write a book like this (you even had to attack his looks, for goodness sake??!!); another part wonders how these books get published. Reader beware - if you're looking for a good piece of historical fiction featuring Alexander the Great, look elsewhere.

If you want to read about Alexander you start with Plutarch's The Age of Alexander or Arrian's Penguin Classics Campaigns Of Alexander where one can learn real history and not some fictuous non sense found in this book from Nicastro's pathetic attempt to write history.