Unfortunately, most such discussions don't seem to have really examined the core question. They tend to compare personalities rather than abilities. For any rational discussion; there needs to be some sort of objective guidelines that can be used to rate any general who's being discussed.
If we ignore personality and focus on the actual business of making war; the best general is be the one who achieves his goals in the shortest possible time; at the least possible cost in lives and treasure; and with the smallest possible loss on the enemy's side, also. The general who achieves these things is a great general. Also, the label of "great" can only be awarded for operations over a period of time as accomplishing all of these things in only one battle could be a matter of luck.
A great general needs some tools to become great, beyond the basic knowledge of tactics, strategy and logistics.
Courage allows the commander to overcome the fears inherent in war. Physical courage allows him to place himself at risk of death or injury when necessary; moral courage protects him from attacks by "friendly" in his own army and the pressure they often exert to do the wrong thing. King Leonidas of Sparta was an example of both. When the Persians invaded, he moved to Thermopylae even though he had minimal support from the rest of the Greek states because he knew it was the right thing to do. In spite of being severely outnumbered, he and his soldiers held the pass for three days until they were overwhelmed and killed.
Integrity allows people to see the commander for what he really is, without subterfuge. This lubricates the gears of communication and saves time because fewer games will be played trying to figure out what the great man really meant by that last order. Soldiers will also fight harder for someone they trust. Lieutenant Colonel George Custer had a high rate of desertion and was eventually suspended for a short time. In spite of his fighting qualities, his goals were mostly self-serving and his troops knew it.
Discipline is required for the commander to accomplish the distasteful tasks that are required as a matter of course when an army is in the field. From the apparently simple tasks of field hygiene, to leading troops into endeavors past what they believe is possible, to the complex
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Dennis Morehouse's Military topic, please visit the Discussions page.