I enjoyed reading Freeman's book and think I would use a similar method if I were to write a book about Alexander. He wrote the book as a story describing what the figures may have thought and felt, giving the reader a glimpse into the mind of a Macedonian far from home while campaigning in Asia. Describing battle scenes makes the reader feel the battle by describing pain, fear, anger, and more. Rather than a dry, clinical textbook approach to Alexander's story, it offers a more visceral, fantasy novel-like approach. He also avoids using esoteric and foreign languages, making the book easy and fun to read, while still accurately conveying the facts and possibilities of Alexander's campaign across Asia. Freeman also spends enough time describing the difficulties and contradictions in the sources of Alexander's story. that the reader can get an idea of ​​what might have happened while still having a solid grasp of his opinion on what he thinks is the truth. Some of the other texts briefly mentioned difficulties with the sources and contradictions between them, but did a poor job of conveying the author's opinion or the reliability of the various sources. Freeman also spends time describing Alexander's story. He spoke briefly about Alexander's father, mother and mentors and how they shaped him and gave him insight as a person. Without an understanding of Alexander's provenance it is more difficult to evaluate the validity of disparate sources. By understanding who Alexander was as a person, researchers can better understand his personality and therefore better determine whether something seems out of character for him or not. From the point of view of a non-historian... middle of the paper... ... at the same time a weak point for an experienced reader who wishes to broaden his knowledge of the subject. While it may be a fun book to read, I find it unlikely that any future historian will use it as a reliable source due to its subjectivity and conjecture, and the interpretation of a third or fourth generation interpretation makes its usefulness questionable. The purpose of the book I want to write would heavily influence my overall decision on which style to use. As a non-historian, I appreciate the smooth, easy-to-read narrative that Freeman uses and would most likely emulate his style for the same reason that I want to write a book to introduce people to the subject. The only way to get people interested in history is to attract their attention and create in them the desire to know more, which is difficult to do with a classic textbook.