This is a mostly good Osprey title from an author (Waldemar Heckel) who is one of the leading specialists on Alexander and the Successors. The introduction, which manages to summarizes some three centuries of Greek history and warfare in a bit less than four pages while mentioning the main points is quite remarkable and impressive.
The sections mentioning the living conditions of Alexander's infantrymen and the huge hardships that they bore when following him across the Persian Empire and back again are well described and not often mentioned in other books. They seem to have largely drawn from a book written by a French historian (Paul Faure) published some thirty years ago and focusing on the daily life of Alexander's army. Contrary to some other Osprey titles on the Macedonians (those of Nick Sekunda, in particular), this title is more balanced, more complete and also includes a piece on the phalanx in battle, rather than focusing almost exclusively on organization, structure and numbers.
There are, however, a number of issues with this title. While these are more "glitches" than major problems, there are sufficient in number to have a negative impact and reduce the quality of this title.
A first set of problems is suggested by the subtitle of this book which is about "Alexander's elite infantryman". This infantryman did not "come out of the blue" and was not raised and trained by Alexander, but by his father Philip, but the author has comparatively little to see about Philippe and even less about the Macedonian infantry's considerable and mostly stellar performances during his reign. It is rather revealing, for instance, that the chronology goes straight from 358 BC to 338, therefore skipping most of Philip's reign and, more importantly, the numerous and victorious wars against all of his neighbours through which he forged the highly experienced infantry force that his son was to take with him to Asia. It is in this sense that Heckel's subtitle qualifying hypaspistes and pezhetairoi of "elite" is justified, but he does not make this point explicitly. Instead, he clearly indicates that the former were Guard infantry that received the toughest jobs and were therefore elite, while the latter were line infantry drawn partly from herdsmen of Upper Macedonia and partly from peasants of Lower Macedonia.
A second type of issue is that author does not explicitly acknowledge and treat as such the assumptions he makes. One such assumption is the claim that the pezhetairoi regiments that Alexander took with him to Asia were the contingents raised from Upper Macedonia. While plausible, and even probable, this argument seems to rest solely on the origins of their aristocratic commanding officers. A similar issue arises with regards to the infantry's equipment, with most elements (types of breastplates, if any, length of the sarrissa, unit organization etc...) having been hotly debated for decades (and often still hotly debated).
Another set of "glitches", perhaps more serious, can be found in the section describing the phalanx in battle. It could have been interesting to include and discuss Alexander's first battles as King of Macedonia in Europe and the performance of the phalanx against enemies other than the Persians (Granicus, Issos and Gaugamela) and the Indians (battle of the Hydaspes). The latter battle is not really described. The author does not clearly show what role the infantry played, although some units (including the hypaspistes under Seleucos, if I remember correctly) did confront Poros' elephants. One can even wonder to what extent it was worth including this battle at all in this volume since the author states that it was "primarily a cavalry contest".
In all fairness, the author does mention quite extensively one the main reasons for these "glitches": the nature and limitations of the sources, with only fragments of first-hand contemporary or near-contemporary sources remaining and most of the remaining sources being written centuries later, in particular the Roman ones. The other reason which prevents this title from being as good as it could have been is the usual one: insufficient space which prevents the author from being comprehensive.
I also had mixed feelings with regards to the plates. The choice of topics and the balance between plates focused on equipment, plates showing battle scenes and plates focused on military life scenes are rather good. However, having a plate showing one of the most prominent events of Alexander's campaign against Thracians in 336/335 BC only makes the absence of any text on his European campaigns more keenly felt. Finally, I have never appreciated Christa Hook's persistence in blurring the faces of the characters presented, although this is, of course, entirely a matter of personal preference.