Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar: who was the better general? J.F.C. Fuller discusses each of them; while he doesn’t make a judgement, it’s obvious to readers what he thinks. Read on to find out more.
J.F.C. Fuller (1878-1966), a British major-general, was one of the most important military thinkers of the 20th century. In the 1920s and 30s he wrote extensively on the future of armored warfare, and was disregarded except in Germany, only to be proven correct in World War II. Later in his life he started writing on military history and produced two interesting books, The Generalship of Alexander the Great (1960) and Julius Caesar, Man, Soldier and Tyrant (1965).
He did not make direct comparisons between his two subjects, but after rereading both of them it is fairly clear that he regarded Alexander as the greater general. His Caesar is a clever tactician and a reasonable strategist. He was a great orator who could inspire his soldiers to enormous feats. But he was also very sloppy with logistics, letting his forces be cut off from supplies and themselves besieged (most famously of course in Alexandria). And at no time, according to Fuller, did he give real thought to the long-term incorporation of Gaul into the Roman polity, relying solely on intimidation (the Veneti, Avaricum).
Alexander, according to Fuller, was much stronger in both of the areas Caesar was lacking. He paid great attention to his supply lines and never sacked a city or killed its inhabitants except in battle. This was because he envisioned all of them joining in his polity afterwards. He was a great tactician and strategist and he inspired his soldiers by leading from the front of the cavalry once battle was joined (what has been styled “Heroic Leadership” by other military historians). Fuller’s Alexander also knew when to stop, never trying to conquer the mountainous parts of what is now Afghanistan. As a sidenote by me, neither did Genghis Khan or his successors. What made the British, Russians (twice) or Americans think they could do it?
In summary, although the narratives Fuller relates are basically Arrian and Caesar himself rehashed, the analysis is sometimes at odds with the popular conceptions of the two generals.
By: Daniel A. Bronstein, Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University