Reddit reviews Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography

this is totally not true. Tribes were constantly rebelling against Alexander. Alexander would pacify them, and then move forward, and then they would rebel again. Alexander never had complete control over the lands he conquered.

He also did not exactly embrace cultures - in Anatolia he consistently overthrew the local oligarchy governments to set up democracies that would work in his favor. While this may sound like a nice act, Alexander also over threw democracies in Greece to set up oligarchies - he did whatever was necessary to consolidate his own power.

Third, Alexander the great was never known as the great in his time. The roman's gave Alexander the title the great because they wanted to justify their own imperial conquests. The Romans turned Alexander into a symbol for their own purposes.

Fourth, and the reason why Alexander did embrace Persian culture, was that Alexander was of mixed blood. Alexander's mother, Olympia, was from Epirus, a rival tribe to the Macedonians. Macedonians looked down upon Epirus as being a backward and savage place. Alexander, consequently, was looked down upon for being of mixed blood. In fact, Alexander's father tried to murder Alexander when Alexander was 16 so that his new son, whom his 5th wife had just birthed, and who was of pure Macedonian blood, would take over the throne. After fleeing into exile, two years later Alexander and Olympia plotted together to convince one Phillip's guards to assassinate Philip, and thats how Alexander became king.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662

tl:dr; Alexander wasn't a nice guy, but no one can be a nice guy he is playing the game of thrones.

Ahaha, right - well, for Alexander the Great you'll of course be spoilt for choices on secondary reading. There will be newer books than Peter Green's biography on Alexander but Green's a veteran on the subject and absolutely solid classical scholar. I think those Blackwell and Brill companions will still be good sources for secondary reading.

The Wikipedia page on historiography of Alexander the Great is a good place to start for ancient sources, if you haven't seen it yet. Life of Alexander by Plutarch will be on the same book that I recommended for you above.

Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662

Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (General Military)

https://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Desert-Ancient-General-Military/dp/1846031087

You should definitely read about Alexander the Great. He was one of the most amazing characters in any history of the world. The things he accomplished were greater than some mythological tales. He was viewed as a god by many. His teacher was Aristotle. He conquered the known world and beyond at the time. And he died at 33.
This is a good very historical version.
Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520071662/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_O.0vzbKZ5PRVF

Why are you guys acting like I'm the first one to come up with the idea that Alexander the Great wasn't so great? There's been many authors that have taken a skeptical look at the historical dick-riding that Alexander has gotten.