İskender'in Seferleri

His detailed descriptions really bring the campaigns to life, but I wonder what drew him to emphasize these aspects over others. Was it common for historians of his time?

His leadership was undeniably brilliant, yet some of his decisions felt morally complex. How do readers reconcile admiration with the brutality?

The portrayal seems nuanced, but it's hard to tell what was historical fact versus narrative choice. Did anyone catch moments that seemed deliberately crafted to shape his image?