pothos.org

Hi everybody,
I was reading the comments on the forum regarding the books by Manfredi "Alexandros"- the general impression would seem to be abysmal- but the reasons didn't, to me, come clear. Some people criticised it strongly without having read it- which I think is the same as judging a book by its cover, others seemed to censure it but didn't mention why it was academically unfactual.
The Sherlock Holmes in me immediately went to work to discover why the books are or are not inaccurate. The biggest blunders to me are- a:- Aristotle depicted as an antiquated "Sherlock Holmes"- delving into the murder of Philip and the subsequent conclusions- that the Oracle of Delphi was maybe involved or responsible and b:- the little girl that Alexander saves from the grasps of slavery in the Gold Mines- did she exist? I haven't seen her mentioned anywhere else. Also c:- in the beginning of Alex's reign Attalus and others appear to have mere "accidents" and are not assassinated by Alex at all. The more complex "blunders" I have not yet detected, above all, in the last book- about India but Sherlock will keep you posted!!!
All the Best,Dean.

Hi Dean,You have posted a very fair question. Many of us have fulminated against the books at one time or another and perhaps we haven't been brilliant at ennumerating exactly what our objections are.Unfortunately, I am not prepared to spend the time going back into the books to explain all my objections, but for the record here are my main complaints:(a) extremely badly written. OK, this might be a problem with the fact that I read a translation, but then I have read other books in translation and I cannot believe that the poor writing is solely the fault of the translator. I'm sorry, but the fact is that writing that poor shouldn't have shelf space(b) a totally naive approach to the characters. All the way through the books the main characters sound like the Famous Five go Conquering in Asia. I'm sorry, but these were grown men who led armies, not a bunch of adolescents as Manfredi writes them to be. Their naivete and simplistic speech and actions make it read as if the books were written by a twelve-year-old, rather than a so-called adult historian. I suppose, ultimately, this comes back to the fact that the writing is just poor.As far as the unhistoricity of the books is concerned, I cannot think of anything off-hand, but I certainly agree with your point about Aristotle (except that Sherlock Holmes was a better detective).All the best, and apologies to Sig Manfredi for not being able to be more specific about what I find objectionable about his books.Marcus

MarcusNice, very nice reply! All i've wanted to say, but was lazy enought to write down :)Always nice to have someone speaking for oneself. :)susa

Hey, thanks Susa.I was almost too lazy to write a response at all, but it was a fair question posed by Dean and it deserved a response, I felt.Am available to write all your correspondence at a price: very good at rude letters to bank managers, call centre supervisors, solicitors, etc. Also available for weddings, christenings, bah mitzvahs... All the bestMarcus

I need two things, Marcus: a rude letter, and a scientific paper. Can u help?

Rude letter yes.Scientific paper - it depends on whether you will be OK with bulls***...I can do you a cracking paper on the use of technology in training and education, though, if that helps )All the bestMarcus

Oooooh, i love bull****!!!!
And rude letters ..... love them most of all!!!We have a deal, Marcus!:)susa