Rating: 
Summary: Fuller on Alexander
Review: An incredible study of Alexander's' life, political leadership and campaigns by a retired British General. Fuller was very conscious of the fact that modern men can learn from the experiences of Alexander. His awareness lead to not only an adept analysis of Alexander's leadership (military, political and diplomatic), but of commentary as applicable today as forty years ago.
Rating: 
Summary: Too much hyperbole; not a balanced view of history
Review: Books of our time, as in every other preceding era, have dwelled on making grandiose statements such as "...the greatest...in all of world history," or "the most incomparable general the world has ever seen...," or "...at the very head of the Great Captains in history." I have but one advice for the author of this book and like-minded others: When you go out on a limb to make a hugely sweeping statement that requires exhaustive comparisons, you better have the comparisons or else broaden your knowledge regarding "all of history!"Alexander's accomplishments were impressive, but it was certainly not the most impressive. In "speed, improvisation, variety of strategy,...control of terrain, and psychological ability to penetrate the enemy's mind," he had since been surpassed by several greats. As much as I hate to admit it, the Mongols top this list. While Alexander's empire may have been 2 million square miles, that of Genghis Khan and his generals spanned many tens of millions of square miles (nearly the entire Euroasian continent). Their sweep of western Eurasia took only five years, annihilating some of the best armor-clad armies in Europe. Their speed, strategies, and striking power would have brought them to the shores of the Atlantic in a couple of more years had Ogedei's death in Karakorum not dictated their return to Mongolia. Others, such as the Tang cavalries under the emperor Tang Tai-Tsung, expanded its power from a sliver of territory in present-day northern China to span the Pacific to the Tigris in Persia. The Huns sweeped through Europe all the way from Central Asia. Napolean's rise outstrips that of Alexander in both speed and expanse. The British under queen Victoria had their navy roaming the seas, leaving indelible marks in India, Africa, and the Middle East. The Germans during WWII had a swift expansion through Europe with their strategies and efficient use of weaponry. I did not list them all. But all in all, no military power was more efficient than the Mongols who, often outnumbered, required only a total of about one hundred thousand in each theater of war (Europe, Middle East) to bring near total annihilation to their enemies. It took somewhat more effort and time to sweep through China, though fragmented at the time, due to the historial experience of the Chinese in fighting their nomadic neighbors and new weapons technology (e.g. cannons and firearms) that were in play in the Far East theater. Out of all this, I cannot see how Mr. Green could honestly claim that Alexander the Great was "the greatest" or the "most incomparable." The most urgent need in the library of human knowledge is not more narrow-minded works motivated by ethnocentrism, or caused by lack of breadth of knowledge. The most urgent need is for great historians who are not afraid of fostering honest understanding of history by placing accomplishments in their rightful context or acknowledging the true sources of ideas and advancement regardless of whether the historian is from the West, the East, Europe, Asia, the Americas or any other politically created boundaries. Unfortunately, such surpassing courage and intellect is hard to find in both antiquity and modern times, including in this book.
Rating:
Summary: Page turner on Alexander the Great
Review: Fuller gives both the positive and negative of Alexander the Great. On the one hand he analyzes his amazing ability as a general and on the other side shows him to be self centered and egotistical. The second, however, is often the necessary evil of genius.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent work on Alexander's military campaigns
Review: Fullers work is a laudable work on the military campaigns of Alexander. It is a very easy to read book with thoughful analysis of each battle. He begins the book not on Alexander but his father and traces the rise of the Macedonian power that would be passed on from Phillip II to his son Alexander. The book is very well divided into two main parts then broken down again into very well thought out sub sections. This makes for a pleasant read and also makes it easy for reference or research. It is well written and should be able to be read and understood by the average High School student but with enough analysis and detail for a more advanced reader to peruse through and not lose interest. I recommend this book to any student not only of Alexander but also to any student of military history.
Rating:
Summary: A great book
Review: J. F. C. Fuller does a great job of covering Alexander's background, life, conquests and battles. It reads just like a fiction novel. It is full of useful information, has much historical backing, and has excellent details on Alexander's amazing battles against incredible odds. It is both easy and enjoyable to read. After reading this book, I cannot imagine reading another one of Alexander.
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: J.F.C. Fuller presents a superb book on Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest figure in military history in recorded history. The book is very concise and well-written, with fluid language, that rarely, if ever, bogs down the reader. His descriptions are clear and very detailed, and he makes very clear what sources he is drawing from. The analysis especially was insightful and interesting.
What I find most engaging about this book, however, is the fact that Fuller minimizes his awe of Alexander, avoiding the praises and demigod status some historians attribute to Alexander, and fairly showing his darker side. He also fairly represents the Persians, painting them not as incompetent, so much as simply overmatched and then overwhelmed.
Highly reccomended.
Rating:
Summary: A general writes about a general.
Review: J.F.C. Fuller, a British pioneer of mechanized warfare, analyzes Alexander the Great as a leader and general. The book is divided into two parts, the Record, which deals with the Macedonian army, the lay of the land and background of the era, then the Analysis takes apart the battles. The final chapters deals with Alexander's statesmanship, as Alexander also had ideas on the nature of government. Great book. If you have this book, may I suggest also getting 'Alexander the Great and Logistics of the Macedonian Army' by Donald W. Engels?
Rating:
Summary: A general writes about a general.
Review: J.F.C. Fuller, a British pioneer of mechanized warfare, analyzes Alexander the Great as a leader and general. The book is divided into two parts, the Record, which deals with the Macedonian army, the lay of the land and background of the era, then the Analysis takes apart the battles. The final chapters deals with Alexander's statesmanship, as Alexander also had ideas on the nature of government. Great book. If you have this book, may I suggest also getting 'Alexander the Great and Logistics of the Macedonian Army' by Donald W. Engels?
Rating:
Summary: Unbiased critique of Alexander's military ability
Review: JFC Fuller's book is a tightly focused analysis of Alexander's military campaigns. He scrutinizes his strategy and tactics, and offers an insightful view of his successes and failures. The author considers, rightly, that military operations and politics are closely integrated. Some the discussion centers around Alexander's politcal strategy but is related to goals: did it assist or hinder his operations? This is not a social history, anyone looking for discussion of Alexander's drinking habits, sexual preference, and meglomania would be advised to pass on this work. The only aspect that is not of the caliber of the rest of the book, is the last chapter where Fuller assesses the Second World War using Alexander as a model. Fuller was an outspoken critic of Churchill and the US during the war; in this instance he uses Alexander as his axe to grind. His comparisons here are fatuous: political structures of 300 BC bear no relation to those of 1945 AD. This aside, for anyone interested in a refreshingly un-biased view of Alexander this book is one to have.
Rating:
Summary: A solid look at Alexander's generalship and statesmanship
Review: 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.
|
