The Generalship of Alexander the Great by JFC Fuller

I have just finished and enjoyed The Generalship of Alexander the Great by JFC Fuller. This is a survey for general readers of the life and military campaigns of Alexander the Great published in 1960. I picked this book somewhat at random when I was searching for a good biography of Alexander the Great with a particular focus on his military campaigns and wasn’t ready to read the original source material.

It turns out JFC Fuller is a fairly interesting guy, who wrote prolifically on military history and military theory, including being a major theorist behind armoured warfare as put into action by Nazi Germany. As a military man rather than a classicist, he's basing his book on the translations and analysis of others of the available sources on Alexander’s life. What he brings uniquely to the table is an understanding of warfare, which allows him to analyze and the actual battles and tactics in a way that someone with no military background would not. His footnotes aren't comprehensive, but they are adequate.

Fragment of Mosaic in Pompeii (purchased from Getty Images)

I’m not remotely an expert on the historiography of Alexander the Great, but here’s what I’ve gleaned from the little reading and research that I’ve done. All of the sources for Alexander the Great’s life wrote hundreds of years after his conquests based on sources available to them but lost to us. Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander is the most famous and authoritative, but it was written based on the (lost) works of sources highly sympathetic to Alexander. Some of our other sources, Diodorus, Curtius, and Justin (known as the Vulgate authors) appear to be based on a common tradition or common source which is also lost to us but is less favorable to Alexander than Arrian. Biographies of Alexander give more or less credence to each side of the debate, with more modern ones trending more towards less admiration of Alexander or simply (I suspect) crapping all over him and Arrian if they want to maximize the hype they get for saying something shocking. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Fuller puts a lot of stock in a famous biography of Alexander by W.W. Tarn published in 1948 that is very sympathetic to Alexander, and he is definitely in the camp of greatly admiring Alexander. I wasn’t bothered by any bias Fuller might have when reading this book—Alexander was considered a truly great conqueror for millienia, and I see no compelling reason that historians today can argue he wasn’t on the basis of no new source material. His conquests are unbelievably remarkable by any standard, and Fuller argues persuasively for his skill as a politician and statesmen.

Rather than a traditional biography, Fuller breaks his book into parts. Part 1 of the book is a summary of Alexander's life, the kingdom of Macedon, and the political situation he found himself in when he became King. It also provides a summary of his incredible campaigns of conquest of the Persian empire. We’re talking about everything from Greece to India, plus Egypt! Part 2 of the book is where Fuller’s military expertise comes through the best--detailed descriptions of each of the major battles and campaigns. This book really isn't intended as a comprehensive biography--it's about the battles, and this section shines.

The massive of scope of Alexander's conquests.

A final part of the book evaluates Alexander as a commander and statesmen and argues persuasively that he was a singular genius in all of these areas. In particular, Fuller singles out Alexander’s ability to take advantage of internal fronts—that is dissent in his enemy’s regimes. He argues persuasively that the British and Americans failed to do this in World War II in the fight with Germany, leading to many more lives lost on both sides, as well as giving an advantage to the Soviets in the post-war period. Note that I’m aware Fuller was a bit of a Nazi sympathizer, but, still, I think this point is well taken.

Fuller's writing style is fluid, direct, and easy to follow, which makes it a pleasure to read. My main criticisms of this book are that there aren't enough maps (are there ever?) and it would be great to have a glossary reminding the reader of the identities of the figures involved. It also would be really nice to have pictures or diagrams of the weapons and armor used by Alexander's troops. The actual battle maps are well done and do make the battles easier to follow. I also wish that Fuller would use modern place names instead of ancient ones or at least intersperse them. Most people, like me, don’t immediately know where Bactria is located on a map. I also didn’t love the structure of the book. It would have been better to just have a traditional chronological narrative with the battle analysis as part of the body of the book.

After reading this, I will likely want to read more about Alexander's father, Philip, who was a political genius and created the foundation for what Alexander achieved. I suspect that the succession (or lack thereof) and future of Alexander's conquests would also be interesting topics to pursue.

Photo Credits:

• Map is on wikimedia here; CC license here.

• Cover photo is from amazon's listing of this book.