|
|
Virtual Macedonia Bookstore - The generalship of Alexander the Great
![The generalship of Alexander the Great]()
|
List Price:
Our Price:
Your Save: $ ( % )
Availability:
Manufacturer: Minerva Press
|
Average Customer Rating:  
|
|
Binding: Unknown Binding
Label: Minerva Press
Manufacturer: Minerva Press
Number Of Pages: 336
Publication Date: 1968
Publisher: Minerva Press
Studio: Minerva Press
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating: 
Summary: Horribly dated
Comment: Do we know much about Alexander the general? The accounts of his campaigns contain gross exaggerations of the number of battles he faced and are full of what are probably heroic glosses. Hans Delbruck(History of the Art of War) a famous German historian made it his business to try to calculate accurately the numbers of troops involved in many famous battles. He did this by looking at the logistics of movement and feeding armies. He concludes that most of the Greek accounts of the various Persian Wars are wrong.
Prior to Alexander the Greeks were a weak militarily. The reasons for this were partially tactical partially political. Greece did not exist as a political entity. Rather Greek people were split into large numbers of small city states. Yet we should remember that there were a lot of them. Greek people not only lived in Greece but in what is now western Turkey, southern Italy, Sicily and southern France. The Greeks waged war by the use of heavily armed infantry called hoplites. Their infantry were the most advanced infantry of the time and in fact Persia used mercenary Greeks as there strike infantry. The weakness of the Greeks was that they had no real cavalry and they were useless at siege warfare. The Greeks thus had some potential and were able to defeat the Persians in defensive campaigns were they could control the ground and negate the use of cavalry. However in offensive campaigns they were useless as shown by the amateurish attempt by Athens to build an empire in Sicily. When Sparta became the leading power in Greece they were not able to put together any long term campaign to challenge the Persians. In fact the Persians most effective means of defence was to use their treasury to sow discord between the Greek states.
Phillip built up a strong army that had strong cavalry detachments and Alexander became a master at siege warfare. Both Phillip and Alexander were able to unify Greece to form a basis for an assault on the Persians. Some ruthlessness was required as shown by Alexander's destruction of Thebes.
The best argument for Alexander's strategic genius is that advanced by Engels in his book Alexander and the logistics of the Macedonian Army. The Spartans had put armies into Asia Minor but they had not achieved much. Alexander worked out a plan to liberate the Ionian Greeks to increase his logistic base and to keep a supply line open. He then had to defeat the Persian navy. As he did not have the ship to do this he instead conquered the land bases of the fleet. The Phoenician cities. He then was able to conquer Egypt. This meant that the Persians could not send a fleet to invade Greece and he could use the sea to supply his armies with men and food.
If we look at the various battles it would seem that they were mainly decided by the use of heavily armed Greek infantry. At Issus and Gaugamela the Greeks lost less than a thousand men in each battle. At Issus Delbruck makes a convincing argument that the Persians were outnumbered and fought a defensive battle. At Gaugamela the Persians had been unable to recruit mercenary Greeks and had to rely on inferior infantry and cavalry.
If we turn to Fuller's book rather than looking at the broader picture he tries to reconstruct what went on in the battles. He then tries to evaluate from his reconstruction the nature of Alexander's skills. However it is not clear that his reconstruction is more than guesswork and he fails to grasp Alexander's true genius which is his strategic rather than his tactical vision.
The book also contains a long rant in the epilogue about the evils of Britain and the allied adopting a policy of unconditional surrender in the Second World War. Fuller suggests that if it had not been for this the "good Germans" would have removed Hitler from power and it would have all ended with sweetness and light prior to 1945. This of course is simply a bizarre fantasy and raises a question mark about whether he has any ability as a historian.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Great Insight into Alexander's Military Exploits
Comment: There are many great books about Alexander the Great out there and this one certainly ranks along with the very best. Alexander is many different things to different people, but if there is one thing that the big majority could agree on, it's that Alexander was one of the greatest military commanders (if not THE greatest) of all time and this book focuses on the military aspects of his most astounding career. J.F.C. Fuller is considered one of the best military historians of the 20th century and it's refreshing to read the insights from someone with a thorough military background instead of the opinions from a classical history scholar. Alexander was great at many things but it was as a military leader that he really stood out and this book focuses on that aspect instead of delving into so many other areas as other books tend to do.
I've read many books about Alexander the Great and it's easy to notice the difference between the writings of someone with a military background like Fuller and Peter G. Tsouras and those of "pure" college scholars. This book isn't as thorough as a biography as those from historians dedicated to ancient Greece and Rome, but that's what I liked about this book. It reads fast and is informative without bogging you down with so many names, places, and high-browed academia that seem to be more about impressing other scholars than informing the general reader. When I read some of the "scholarly" books about Alexander, I can't help but think that these historians are simply trying to out-do the other with their opinions than really trying to present objective history.
Surely, Fuller sits in the positive camp and he focuses on Alexander's achievements, strategies, and tactics from a military leader's perspective rather than a college professor's. Fuller doesn't delve into moral ramblings like so many historians seem to do these days. We get the facts and the expert analysis from someone who knows the military inside out, not bookworms sitting in a college office or the home den. You get the insights of someone who understands war, who has been on the front lines with other soldiers, and who knows what it's like to face the enemy and death itself. My beef with historians who sit on some moral high horse and criticize Alexander is that they don't know what it's like to be a soldier, which is what Alexander was - first and foremost. And that's why I believe this book is significant.
Some critics charge that Alexander was a reckless commander who endangered not only his life but those of his soldiers. Well, let's look at the results. Alexander was often heavily outnumbered - sometimes as much as 6 to 1 or even 10 to 1 - but Alexander and the Macedonian army won virtually every battle decisively with minimum losses while the enemies suffered catastrophic casualties. The enemies often suffered 10~20 times as many casualties as Alexander's army did. To those who criticize Alexander's "recklessness" as a general, what would YOU have done to do even better and save more Macedonian lives? Of course, these people wouldn't have a clue but it's easy for them to sit in their easy chair or a school desk and say, "I could have done better."
This book is written by a renowned military general and historian and that means a lot. You can't quite compare that to most books written by university scholars who have no idea what it's like to put one's own life on the line as a soldier in times of war. Fuller writes and extrapolates from the perspective of a soldier, a general, and a leader of men in battle. I just can't see how anyone who hasn't been a soldier can understand what that's really like. Fuller illuminates the mind of the soldier as well as that of Alexander himself as a leader. This book isn't the definitive biography about Alexander, but if you want to read a detailed analysis of Alexander's military battles, campaigns, and achievements from a lifelong military man, it doesn't get any better than this.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and Insightful
Comment: "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" is a fascinating book on Alexander the Great's life, political leadership and generalship. It was written by Fuller, a retired British General who is a world renowned military historian.
Alexander was a unique leader who inspired his men to perform extraordinary feats and who was highly revered. He led from the front and his presence had decisive sway on his troops. He could quickly read a tactical situation and make decisive moves that would change the course of battle in his favour. His troops were highly mobile and adaptable to various tactical situations.
This is a well researched book with the author citing various credible sources to reinforce his claims and arguments. The book can be easily understood by anybody with an interest in Alexander the Great. The author provides the reader with background information about Macedonia, Persia and other places, has maps which indicate the geographical areas referred to in the campaigns as well as the background to Alexander himself, among other useful details and insights.
From the study of Alexander the Great, today's military commanders have a lot to learn, just as Caesar, Napoleon and Hannibal and others carefully studied Alexander and emulated and adapted some of his methods and techniques to good effect.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Informative but hard to read
Comment: This book was the first text I ever read about Alexander and was a little bit disappointing. The information is all there (somewhere) but it is not presented in an interesting manner. I was given the book at Christmas and did not finish it yet (May, 02). More than often, the author describes the various conflicting sources of information but does not gives his opinion about which one is the most likely. This happens very frequently with the number of soldier involved in the battles he describes. The book is also rather poor in maps and figures and the text very often mentions places and roads without referring the reader to the existing maps. Some times you read through 2 or 3 pages without fully understanding the description just to find out that the map was there, some pages ahead. Finally, there is no detailed description of the battle units and armaments used at Alexander's times, leading the non-specialist reader to confusion.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Excellent View of Alexander
Comment: There are many biographies of Alexander the Great out there. Most tend to look at his influence on the the times he lived in, as well as his legacy to the world. There are many ways to view the Macedonian juggernault. Here we have a unique perspective by a reknowned military historian. JFC Fuller takes Alexander's career and provides a first-rate look and analysis. The book is divided into two roughly equal parts. The first section provides a fast moving mini-bio of his life, emphisizing the major battles and campaigns of Alexander. The depth here is lacking, and purposely so, as this information is only provided in order to follow the discussion of his generalship.
Alexander exercised a unique kind of leadership. In addition to leading from the front in battle, he also combined the abilities of general and statesmen all in one person. In battle Alexander's presence was a decisive influence. He had an innate ability to read a tactical situation, and adapt it to the abilities of his Macedonian army. Its important to understand how important this army was to Alexander's strategy. Without this carefully crafted force which his father, Philip II created, Alexander could not have accomplished what he did. Fuller helps us to understand this by showing how Alexander used this army as a tool for all his endeavors. Its important to remember how much the Macedoonian army out-classed its Persian and Indian opponets. It was also a very versatile army, able to operate in almost any circumstances.
We see Alexander's brilliance both in major and minor battles and campaigns. This book is a must have for the Alexander specialist. It can serve as a useful guide for any of the numerous biographies out there which tend to gloss over many of the details of his generalship. Highly recommended for Alex buffs, and for the recent interest generated by the new movie on this subject.
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
