What do you think?
Rate this book
Generalship of Alexander the Great
A brief and meteoric life (356-323 B.C.) Alexander was the greatest of all conquerors in the course of world history. He had a small army--seldom exceeding 40,000 men--but a constellation of bold, revolutionary ideas about the conduct of war and the nature of government. J. F. C. Fuller, one of the foremost military historians of the twentieth-century, was the first to analyze Alexander in terms of his leadership as a general. He has divided his study into two parts. The first, entitled "The Record," describes the background of the era, Alexander's character and training, the structure of the Macedonian army, and the geography of the world that determined the strategy of conquest. The second part, "The Analysis," takes apart the great battles, from Granicus to Hydaspes, and concludes with two chapters on Alexander's statesmanship. In a style both clear and witty, Fuller imparts the many sides to Alexander's genius and the full extent of his empire, which stretched from India to Egypt.
353 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1958
24 people are currently reading
1121 people want to read
About the author
J.F.C. Fuller
127 books69 followersMajor-General John Frederick Charles Fuller, CB, CBE, DSO was a British Army officer (1899–1933), military historian and strategist, notable as an early theorist of modern armoured warfare, including categorising principles of warfare.
Fuller was also an early disciple of English poet and magician Aleister Crowley and was very familiar with his, and other forms of, magick and mysticism.
Fuller was also an early disciple of English poet and magician Aleister Crowley and was very familiar with his, and other forms of, magick and mysticism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
May 3, 2013
The Generalship of Alexander the Great is not primarily a biography but rather, as the title indicates, an analysis of the Macedonian's generalship and statesmanship. Writing "the art of war ... was the same in Alexander's day as it is now" J. F. C. Fuller presents the campaigns and policies of the Macedonian as examples from which to derive useful lessons. At the Camberley Staff College he used Alexander's operations as lesson material and argues "had statesmen and generals-in-chief been acquainted with the history of Greece in the fought century B.C., they might have avoided many of the colossal blunders perpetrated by them in the Second World War." While giving civil and military leaders much to think about, Fuller's book will also appeal to laymen as well.
Historians will be interested in and pleased with the author's sources. Fuller utilizes many primary sources, most notably Arrian's Anabasis, and discloses where these sources conflict, as they often do over battle fatalities and troop estimates. Many secondary sources, like W. W. Tarn's two-volume Alexander the Great, are also used along with the works of Plato and Clausewitz. The sources are good and well documented for easy reference.
The book's organization divides it into two halves and, for the most part, is reader-friendly. The first section is devoted to chronologically summarizing the Macedonian's exploits while the second half devotes a chapter to examining all of Alexander's battles, then one to his sieges, et cetera. This arrangement makes it easy to both get a good overview of the conqueror's accomplishments and to directly compare his battles with each other. The only drawback is that this makes it difficult to place the battles in their chronological and political setting. Another helpful feature of the book's organization is the inclusion of chapters on the political background of Alexander's age and on the Macedonian army. These, along with information on the Persian Empire and the geography of the region, make the volume accessible to the general public.
The account of Alexander's life and deeds is set out roughly chronologically and progresses logically. The narrative is pleasantly interspersed with biographical stories about Alexander such as when he approached the Delphic oracle and extracted the prophecy "thou art invincible, my son!" and the account of his visit to the tomb of Achilles. However, the reader looking for a biography of Alexander would be better to look elsewhere. Even with these interesting tidbits, the strategical narrative moves quickly and understandably.
Alexander began his career by securing Macedonia's borders and then his position as hegemon of the Hellenic League. He did the first with quick campaigns against tribes on the Danube and the second by razing Thebes after it resisted his authority (a move he later regretted). After guaranteeing the loyalty of Hellas, Alexander crossed the Hellespont into Anatolia and won his first major victory at the River Granicus. Once Darius is defeated in battle and assassinated by one of his own satraps Alexander became king of Persia and changed his focus from one of conquest to one of administering and unifying his empire. Fuller explains how "as an administrator, Alexander build on what existed, reformed and experimented with it as far as time permitted, and did not adhere to any system that failed to stand the test of practice." Many of these reform policies angered the Macedonian veterans but "they belonged to the old world, and ... the new ... was comprehensible to Alexander alone."
The analysis of Alexander's policies, which were relatively egalitarian and very lenient to his defeated enemies, is excellent. As Fuller points out, "throughout his life Alexander consistently subordinated strategy to policy, which is the essence of grand strategy" and the analysis of the battles and strategy in the book's second section is vigorous and comprehensible. Fuller, who rose to the rank of major general, carefully lays out the military units and commanders involved on both sides and summarizes the battle action succinctly and in a manner that non-experts can easily grasp. A map is provided for each battle (two for the battle of Arbela) and, while not of excellent quality, all the maps are sufficient.
Fuller traces the advance of the Macedonians to India where they refused to go on. Alexander then returned to his empire where he reformed corruption and dissent which had arisen in his absence. Shortly after that, the great king died at the age of thirty-three and his empire was divided up amongst his top generals. Fuller goes into speculation on what Alexander would have done had he lived (deciding that he would have consolidated his empire) and concludes that "Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire, his new cities and financial reforms, were to lead to the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms, and through the Roman empire which absorbed them, to lay the foundations of European culture and civilization." Following that, the author returns to his purpose and in nine pages argues how, had lessons from Alexander been applied, costly mistakes made in World War II could have been avoided. Throughout, Fuller shows the applicability of Alexander's examples with numerous accounts of emulation by such figures as Caesar, Hannibal, and Napoleon.
J. F. C. Fuller's prose is clear and concise, the organization of the book is superb, and all points and information are presented in a coherent manner. The first half especially will appeal to casual readers and historians will find the work to be very useful as the starting point for further research into any aspects of Alexander's life and career. The author is careful to show Alexander's faults along with his gifts and avoids casting the Persians as hopelessly inept. He proves his thesis and convincingly argues for paying greater attention to the lessons of antiquity lest generals and statesmen remain doomed to repeat history's mistakes.
Historians will be interested in and pleased with the author's sources. Fuller utilizes many primary sources, most notably Arrian's Anabasis, and discloses where these sources conflict, as they often do over battle fatalities and troop estimates. Many secondary sources, like W. W. Tarn's two-volume Alexander the Great, are also used along with the works of Plato and Clausewitz. The sources are good and well documented for easy reference.
The book's organization divides it into two halves and, for the most part, is reader-friendly. The first section is devoted to chronologically summarizing the Macedonian's exploits while the second half devotes a chapter to examining all of Alexander's battles, then one to his sieges, et cetera. This arrangement makes it easy to both get a good overview of the conqueror's accomplishments and to directly compare his battles with each other. The only drawback is that this makes it difficult to place the battles in their chronological and political setting. Another helpful feature of the book's organization is the inclusion of chapters on the political background of Alexander's age and on the Macedonian army. These, along with information on the Persian Empire and the geography of the region, make the volume accessible to the general public.
The account of Alexander's life and deeds is set out roughly chronologically and progresses logically. The narrative is pleasantly interspersed with biographical stories about Alexander such as when he approached the Delphic oracle and extracted the prophecy "thou art invincible, my son!" and the account of his visit to the tomb of Achilles. However, the reader looking for a biography of Alexander would be better to look elsewhere. Even with these interesting tidbits, the strategical narrative moves quickly and understandably.
Alexander began his career by securing Macedonia's borders and then his position as hegemon of the Hellenic League. He did the first with quick campaigns against tribes on the Danube and the second by razing Thebes after it resisted his authority (a move he later regretted). After guaranteeing the loyalty of Hellas, Alexander crossed the Hellespont into Anatolia and won his first major victory at the River Granicus. Once Darius is defeated in battle and assassinated by one of his own satraps Alexander became king of Persia and changed his focus from one of conquest to one of administering and unifying his empire. Fuller explains how "as an administrator, Alexander build on what existed, reformed and experimented with it as far as time permitted, and did not adhere to any system that failed to stand the test of practice." Many of these reform policies angered the Macedonian veterans but "they belonged to the old world, and ... the new ... was comprehensible to Alexander alone."
The analysis of Alexander's policies, which were relatively egalitarian and very lenient to his defeated enemies, is excellent. As Fuller points out, "throughout his life Alexander consistently subordinated strategy to policy, which is the essence of grand strategy" and the analysis of the battles and strategy in the book's second section is vigorous and comprehensible. Fuller, who rose to the rank of major general, carefully lays out the military units and commanders involved on both sides and summarizes the battle action succinctly and in a manner that non-experts can easily grasp. A map is provided for each battle (two for the battle of Arbela) and, while not of excellent quality, all the maps are sufficient.
Fuller traces the advance of the Macedonians to India where they refused to go on. Alexander then returned to his empire where he reformed corruption and dissent which had arisen in his absence. Shortly after that, the great king died at the age of thirty-three and his empire was divided up amongst his top generals. Fuller goes into speculation on what Alexander would have done had he lived (deciding that he would have consolidated his empire) and concludes that "Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire, his new cities and financial reforms, were to lead to the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms, and through the Roman empire which absorbed them, to lay the foundations of European culture and civilization." Following that, the author returns to his purpose and in nine pages argues how, had lessons from Alexander been applied, costly mistakes made in World War II could have been avoided. Throughout, Fuller shows the applicability of Alexander's examples with numerous accounts of emulation by such figures as Caesar, Hannibal, and Napoleon.
J. F. C. Fuller's prose is clear and concise, the organization of the book is superb, and all points and information are presented in a coherent manner. The first half especially will appeal to casual readers and historians will find the work to be very useful as the starting point for further research into any aspects of Alexander's life and career. The author is careful to show Alexander's faults along with his gifts and avoids casting the Persians as hopelessly inept. He proves his thesis and convincingly argues for paying greater attention to the lessons of antiquity lest generals and statesmen remain doomed to repeat history's mistakes.
December 15, 2017
This is divided into two main parts: a short biography of Alexander, and an analysis of his major acts of warfare and of his generalship .
Part one was not great. Fuller had some biases that kept bleeding out into his conclusions.
Part two was very thoughtful and analytical. I liked his step-by-step walk throughs of the battles and sieges. Nice.
Part one was not great. Fuller had some biases that kept bleeding out into his conclusions.
Part two was very thoughtful and analytical. I liked his step-by-step walk throughs of the battles and sieges. Nice.
January 15, 2017
This book took a bit of effort to get through, but in the end it was well worth the effort. Of particular interest, in the context of America's difficulties in the Middle East, were Fuller's observations of the statesmanship of Alexander the Great. While Alexander's abilities as a warrior are undoubted, his conquests were made possible by his nuanced treatment of his former enemies once the latter were vanquished.
Of interest was Fuller's assertion that victory in war is not an end in itself, but merely a means to the end of peace.
Policymakers in the United States could do worse than to read this work from 57 years ago, as its reflections are particularly apposite to the situation America faces today.
Of interest was Fuller's assertion that victory in war is not an end in itself, but merely a means to the end of peace.
Policymakers in the United States could do worse than to read this work from 57 years ago, as its reflections are particularly apposite to the situation America faces today.
March 2, 2011
I feel like a bit of a fool giving this just two stars, as it is an acknowledged classic, and I did not read the whole thing. In some ways I could not bring myself to do so. After his general sketch, Fuller's narrative gets way too technical for me, though I admit that others might enjoy this style. I confess also that his near adoration of Alexander annoyed me. I can understand having a generally positive view of a complicated man. But Fuller ends up explaining away even his worst deeds, like the execution of the entirely innocent Parmenio.
For full disclosure, I did not buy chunks of Fuller's analysis because I see Alexander as a pop-philosopher at best. He was a man of action and power, not sober reflection. Thus, I don't see him having a unified advance 'grand strategy.' Instead, I see a fierce and brilliant warrior perhaps stumbling into one. But whether planned or not, the chaos after his death shows us that it really did not work.
If you are looking for a range of opinions on Alexander and want a strong 'pro' position, the first 100 pages or so of this book would do nicely. For an almost entirely opposite take on Alexander, I recommend Victor Davis Hanson's chapter on him in his book 'Carnage and Culture.'
For full disclosure, I did not buy chunks of Fuller's analysis because I see Alexander as a pop-philosopher at best. He was a man of action and power, not sober reflection. Thus, I don't see him having a unified advance 'grand strategy.' Instead, I see a fierce and brilliant warrior perhaps stumbling into one. But whether planned or not, the chaos after his death shows us that it really did not work.
If you are looking for a range of opinions on Alexander and want a strong 'pro' position, the first 100 pages or so of this book would do nicely. For an almost entirely opposite take on Alexander, I recommend Victor Davis Hanson's chapter on him in his book 'Carnage and Culture.'
June 10, 2022
ΒΙ-ΒΛΙ-Α-ΡΑ.
August 8, 2021
This is a remarkable book, and well worth the read. JFC Fuller doesn't just describe Alexander as a general; he covers all of the personas and roles this enigmatic figure assumed. He provides detailed explanations for just about everything Alexander ever did--many of which involved a great number of considerations from across a variety of factors affecting him.
For example, Fuller doesn't just tell us that, after defeating the Persian king Darius at Issus, Alexander then went south and secured the easternmost seaboard of the Mediterranean all the way to Egypt because the Persian fleet was far larger than the Greek fleet. Instead, he discusses the various elements of that larger fleet, their places of origin, and their relationship to Darius and the Persian Empire. As Alexander captured each of their native locales, one part of the Persian fleet after another renounced its allegiance to Darius and sided with Alexander until he commanded them all.
While he gives detailed analysis of all of Alexander's campaigns. Fuller goes beyond the military to discuss Alexander the man, the general, and the demi-god. He also emphasizes the importance Alexander placed on winning over the people in the regions he conquered--because otherwise his army would have been whittled down by large occupation forces.
There's so much more to this book that it's impossible to cover it here. I strongly recommend you read it.
For example, Fuller doesn't just tell us that, after defeating the Persian king Darius at Issus, Alexander then went south and secured the easternmost seaboard of the Mediterranean all the way to Egypt because the Persian fleet was far larger than the Greek fleet. Instead, he discusses the various elements of that larger fleet, their places of origin, and their relationship to Darius and the Persian Empire. As Alexander captured each of their native locales, one part of the Persian fleet after another renounced its allegiance to Darius and sided with Alexander until he commanded them all.
While he gives detailed analysis of all of Alexander's campaigns. Fuller goes beyond the military to discuss Alexander the man, the general, and the demi-god. He also emphasizes the importance Alexander placed on winning over the people in the regions he conquered--because otherwise his army would have been whittled down by large occupation forces.
There's so much more to this book that it's impossible to cover it here. I strongly recommend you read it.
July 4, 2009
Very thorough description of the Great Alex and his endless quest to pacify the world. Tactics to grand strategy, this book has it all.
June 24, 2015
A wonderful step by step description of Alexander the great strategy and leadership. I enjoyed very much and it showed me the grandure of the man.
January 25, 2023
While a slightly older book. This is still a pretty solid analysis of Alexander the Great and his campaigns. The focus, as the title mentions, is on his command and campaigns during his career. Those looking for a narrative of Alexander's life should look elsewhere.
One of the most widely known British historians/military minds, Fuller goes in depth into Alexander's career and struggles. The reason that we call Alexander "the Great" is throughout his campaigns he came against incredibly difficult challenges. Its impossible to think of another figure from history who could have accomplished so much despite the odds against him. Fuller takes time to go into every aspects of his campaigns: balancing the egos of Greek and Macedonian generals, the tactics of his four great battles and three of his sieges, the strategic outlook of his campaign to conquer Persia, and his campaigns to curtail the guerilla movements in the farthest reaches of the Persian Empire. Overall I think this is a solid analysis of Alexander's campaigns, for the wellread Alexandrian you won't find anything new, just very clearly writtena and insightful analysis of his military life.
One of the most widely known British historians/military minds, Fuller goes in depth into Alexander's career and struggles. The reason that we call Alexander "the Great" is throughout his campaigns he came against incredibly difficult challenges. Its impossible to think of another figure from history who could have accomplished so much despite the odds against him. Fuller takes time to go into every aspects of his campaigns: balancing the egos of Greek and Macedonian generals, the tactics of his four great battles and three of his sieges, the strategic outlook of his campaign to conquer Persia, and his campaigns to curtail the guerilla movements in the farthest reaches of the Persian Empire. Overall I think this is a solid analysis of Alexander's campaigns, for the wellread Alexandrian you won't find anything new, just very clearly writtena and insightful analysis of his military life.
September 19, 2021
This is mainly a military history, following Alexander T. Great's campaigns from his accession to the throne of Macedon to his death in Babylon. Published in 1960, it portrays him as a great conqueror, which, if conquest be great, is pretty much true. There have been more recent publications which cast this in a negative light. Sorry, I forget the source, but some million or so Indians were supposed to have died as The Great slaughtered his way down the Subcontinent.
General Fuller's main focus is on Our Hero's generalship. He covers his "greatest hits," the Granicus, the Issus, Gaugamela (Arbela), and the Hydaspes as all good bios of Alexander should; but he also covers Alexander's sieges and his lesser battles. The author tells us Alexander, having conquered some place, treated the inhabitants gently provided they behaved themselves, yet this doesn't set well against the many dying.
Anyway, read this to learn of his military actions and how he and his splendid army suceeded; it's a good military history. Other, later books--biographies--may support or refute that.
General Fuller's main focus is on Our Hero's generalship. He covers his "greatest hits," the Granicus, the Issus, Gaugamela (Arbela), and the Hydaspes as all good bios of Alexander should; but he also covers Alexander's sieges and his lesser battles. The author tells us Alexander, having conquered some place, treated the inhabitants gently provided they behaved themselves, yet this doesn't set well against the many dying.
Anyway, read this to learn of his military actions and how he and his splendid army suceeded; it's a good military history. Other, later books--biographies--may support or refute that.
April 20, 2024
This was a rough read but that's my own fault. I didn't realize it was a treatise on Alexander as a military leader vs a bio about Alexander in general. But I already had it so I read it. There is a lot of interesting stuff in there about how versatile Alexander was in war, how quickly he adapted to changing situations, but overall it was hard to stay engaged in some of the more mundane information. There are just too many names, it's hard to track everyone they mention, and the battles are interesting, but definitely abbreviated and on fast forward. Read this is you like to learn about historical military strategy.
April 4, 2024
I read this immediately after finishing the excellent biography here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
This book was lighter on tactics than I wanted but overall was thoughtful if a bit long winded at times
This book was lighter on tactics than I wanted but overall was thoughtful if a bit long winded at times
April 3, 2018
THE BOOK STARTED WHEN OLYMPIA THE MOTHER OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT DREAMED THAT BESIDE HER A SNAKE AND AFTER SHE WAKE UP ALEXANDER WAS BORN
September 16, 2019
Εκπληκτική ανάλυση στην στρατηγική του Μ.Αλέξανδρου!
November 13, 2023
A very well-written book. A beautiful and comprehensive analysis of Alexander the Great's strategic decisions and statesmanship. What an inspiration.
August 6, 2013
This is a really old fashioned kind of book, with a lot of musing about manly heroism and the "brotherhood of great captains." It's also a good history of its kind, depicting a reasonable reconstruction of the events of Alexander's reign with due regard to the reliability of sources and an acknowledgment of the uncertainty inherent in peering back to classical times. Fuller loses me sometimes in the nitty gritty of tactics, but he clearly demonstrates how Alexander's tactics, strategy, and politics formed a coherent system that was strong enough to turn the world upside down.
As much as the Great Man theory is a flawed way of looking at why anything happens in history, there's no denying that history has been populated by a series of incredible people. Fuller's treatment demonstrates that, whatever other factors were involved in ushering in the Hellenistic age, Alexander's personality had a great deal to do with it.
The history touches on a few other areas, but the overwhelming focus is on the military, which Fuller understands deeply. All too often, we conceive of history as a series of battles, and when your primary protagonists are generals and kings it seems impossible to do otherwise. But understanding war is important, and effective conquest really does change the world. There's no question as to why Alexander is worth reading about today.
As much as the Great Man theory is a flawed way of looking at why anything happens in history, there's no denying that history has been populated by a series of incredible people. Fuller's treatment demonstrates that, whatever other factors were involved in ushering in the Hellenistic age, Alexander's personality had a great deal to do with it.
The history touches on a few other areas, but the overwhelming focus is on the military, which Fuller understands deeply. All too often, we conceive of history as a series of battles, and when your primary protagonists are generals and kings it seems impossible to do otherwise. But understanding war is important, and effective conquest really does change the world. There's no question as to why Alexander is worth reading about today.
January 10, 2012
An excellent assessment of the military style and brilliance of Alexander the Great. Fuller writes with a great deal of authority not only as a military man, but also as a cavalry officer able to describe the efficacy of a cavalry charge (and the fear it instills) from personal experience.
His analyses of Alexander's battles are very clear so that even a layman can follow them. Be warned, however, that his views are not universally accepted. Still he presents reasonable assessments of the engagements.
His writing style is that of early 20th century England, but without any of the affectations that can make scholarly writing opaque and difficult to follow.
My only criticism of Fuller's treatment comes with his assessment of the politics that led to Alexander's rise and some of his more important political decisions. In this Fuller is not so much erroneous as dated in his thinking. New evidence and new consideration of the material has often yielded conclusions at odds with his.
His analyses of Alexander's battles are very clear so that even a layman can follow them. Be warned, however, that his views are not universally accepted. Still he presents reasonable assessments of the engagements.
His writing style is that of early 20th century England, but without any of the affectations that can make scholarly writing opaque and difficult to follow.
My only criticism of Fuller's treatment comes with his assessment of the politics that led to Alexander's rise and some of his more important political decisions. In this Fuller is not so much erroneous as dated in his thinking. New evidence and new consideration of the material has often yielded conclusions at odds with his.
Read
February 2, 2014This biography is as the title suggests limited to the military achievements of Alexander the Great. It is after-all through his military campaigns and conquests that we are chiefly aware of Alexander. His conquest of Persia and its subsequent Hellenization have had enormous and far-reaching effects on world history. Written by one of the foremost military thinkers and historians of the early 20th Century, it is naturally well written and thoroughly researched. Fuller details Alexanders' proficiency in all of the then known kinds of warfare. From set piece land battles to sieges to small scale campaigns to counterinsurgency. In all these Alexander and his men proved themselves masters. The picture we get of Alexander from the descriptions offered by Fuller and his sources is a man of supreme confidence and endurance. For Alexander there was always a solution to a problem. This is a fine work of military history and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.
January 26, 2016
The BEST book on Alexander the Great ever written. I have read at least 4 other books on him, and other segments in books discussing this figure. As the author says, his experience as a leader of soldiers in WW2, he can understand the particulars of Alexander's military achievements and the difficulties he encountered. Alexander's fame as caused people to emphasise minor aspects of his personality which might concern him, but most of all, Alexander was a general on a mission, which this author emphasises. The battles are explained and you actually learn about military strategy from this book with great diagrams! It is a learning experience different from other books. One of the best books I have ever read.
February 24, 2011
This book does an excellent job setting the context, by giving relevant Greek and Macedonian history, a good overview of Phillip's reign, shrewd politicking and development of an unsurpassed army. I wish I would have read at least the introductory part of this book before commencing Arrian's narrative.
May 31, 2016
an exceedingly fine book.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews