The Generalship of Alexander the Great, J.F.C. Fuller

The Generalship of Alexander the Great, J.F.C. Fuller

I'm reading JFC Fuller's The Generalship of Alexander the Great, and its an awesome recounting of the man. To understand Alexander, it is important to understand his father, a stallion in his own right. Here's a quote from Fuller:

Philip was a man of outstanding character; practical, long-sighted and unscrupulous. He was a master diplomatist and an astute opportunist to whom success justfied everything. He was reclessly brave(1), yet unlike so many brave generals he would at once set force aside should he consider that bribery(2) or liberality or feigned frindship was more likely to secure his end. He possessed in marked degree the gift of divining what was in his enemy's mind, and when beaten in the field would accept defeat and prepart for victory. Throughout his life he never lost sight of his aim - to bring the whole of Greece under his dominion.

*(1) After his death Demosthenes said of him that in 'contending for empire and supremacy he had endured the loss of an eye, the fracture of his collar-bone, the mutilations of his hand and his leg, and was ready to sacrifice to the future of war any and every part of his body, if only the life of the shazttered remnants should be a life of honour and renouwn'. (Now that is Devotion to your cause. /dwb.)

*(2) Diodorus writes: 'Indeed he was wont to declare that is was far more by the use of gold than of arms that he had enlarged his kingdom.'

Two things stand out to me from this short description of the character of Philip. First, he could read men's motives like a book, and took full advantage of that in his quest for power. He realized that military force was only one alternative in becoming conqueror, and realizing that used bribery liberally. Second, he had before him at all times what his purpose in life was, to bring the whole of Greece under his dominion. Having his mission before him daily gave him the self-control and committment necessary to overcome difficulties, even allowing him to carry on after military defeats. A man to respect, for sure.

Now, here is Fuller on Alexander.

He was a man entirely wrapped up in his destiny and completely devoted to his task. He cared little for any physical pleasures except hunting. Save the love he bore his mother and nurse, he was never enthralled by any woman, and though twice he took to himself a wife, both his marriages were of a political and not of a romantic nature. He never had a mistress, nor was he impotent or a homosexual as his detractors put about in order to defame him. This subordination of his bodily instincts to his task set him apart from the common ruck of men and placed him in that small company of rare and exalted individuals whose iron will, self-control and devotion to their life's task magnetize all who come into contact with them.

His innate sense of royalty, of kingship based not on power but on nombleness of bearing, on chivalrous conduct and of living as a king should, overshadowed every action of his astonishing career. He thought it more kingly, writes Plutarch, to conquer himself than to conquer others, and while still a youth, when some of his friends who knew that he was fleet of foot urged him to run a race in the Olympic Games, his answer was that he would only do so if he might have kings to run with him. The reason is not in doubt: to place himself on a level with a professional athlete - a type of man he disliked - would be to deman his kingship in the eyes of the people.

Of all his acts of royalty, the most typical is his treatment of Porus, whom he defeated on the banks of the Hydaspes (Jhelum). Struck by his kingly bearing, he asked him what treatment he wished to receive. Arrian relates that Porus replied:

"Treat me, O Alexander, in a kingly way!"

Alexander being pleased at the expression, said:

"For my own sake, O Porus, thou shalt be thus treated; but for thy own sake do thou demand what is pleasing to thee?"

But Porus said that everything was included in that. Alexander, being still more pleased at this remark, not only granted him the rule over his own Indians, but also added another country to that which he had before, of larger extent than the former. Thus he treated the brave man in a kingly way, and from that tiime found him faithful in all things.

The moral quality that distinguished him the most clearly from his fellow-men was his compassion toward others. But it is in his behaviour towars women, who in nearly all ages have been considered the legitimate spoil of the soldier, that his compassion is most clearly mirrored. Not only did he treat the captive wife and daughters of Darius with a royal respect, but he held in abhorrence rape and violence, which in his day were the universal concomitants of war.

Fuller goes on with specific examples, and follows this glowing description of Alexander with a list and discussion of "His Misdeed's". Alexander was by no means perfect, but it is amazing that for such a young man he was self-controlled, able to command the respect of his elders, quick to move in times when other men doubt, and sure of his own destiny. Amazing.

Study the life of such a man, my friends, so uncommon in overcoming his own instincts to become reknowned throughout the world and the ages as "Alexander the Great".