Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Could I have More?

Expand Messages
  • sdwakefield@prodigy.net
    You are far too kind . I suspect that others in the group might not share your interest in hearing or reading my crack pot ideas! After spending a lot of years
    Message 1 of 7 , May 11, 2001
      You are far too kind . I suspect that others in the group might not
      share your interest in hearing or reading my crack pot ideas! After
      spending a lot of years reading about the Civil War , I started
      getting off on this tangent of trying to make all that information a
      little more meaningful in my everyday life. As a result I more and
      more began trying to view the subject matter as a background for case
      studies in military and business leadership. The greatest challenge
      remains in trying to develop and define the elements of real
      leadership.
      .Present United States Army Field Manual 100-5, Operations, says what
      leadership does: it provides purpose, direction, and motivation in
      combat. And lord knows it is important to any organizations success.
      In the case of the military combat power comes from the courage and
      competence of soldiers, training, equipment, doctrine, "and above
      all, the quality of their leadership."In addition present Field
      Manual 22-103, Leadership for Senior Leaders, defines leadership as
      the "art of direct and indirect influence and the skill of creating
      the conditions for sustained organizational success to achieve the
      desired result." Early 1970s United States Military doctrine was a
      simpler formulation, that leadership was gaining the willing
      cooperation of our troops, but I think the differing definitions are
      compatible. The former reflects the organizational concern of high
      command, the latter the eyeball-to-eyeball relationship in which
      leaders share with their soldiers the hazards and hardships of
      combat. For Civil War study I think that the present definitions are
      particularly applicable to division command and above and that the
      eye-ball definition is more applicable to brigade and regimental
      leadership. While definitions, axioms, pet theories, and checklists
      abound in is my personal opinion that leadership,(military or
      otherwise) like sex, is a doing thing. ( I always like to work sex
      into any discussion- it tends to get people's attention!)
      Armies can and do require recruits and prospective leaders to learn
      leadership by memorizing lists and passages from manuals and whatever
      else the current general-in-charge favors.During the Civil war this
      manual was Hardee's Tactics or Casey's essentially identical
      translations from the french doctrine.Although the command and
      understanding of the latest tactical manual is essential we certainly
      must agree that alone does not constitute real leadership.But the
      transformation of those particular tactics to effective action in
      combat remains to a very large measure I think is the test of
      leadership. Desirable leadership traits have been identified from
      biblical tales of King David through Tacitus and his admiration of
      the leadership style of barbaric Germans, from epic tales of El CID
      and Roland down to Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Shughart, who put it
      all on the line in Somalia by laying down his life for his friends.
      The traits surely include tactical and technical competence,
      character, leading by example, personal courage, self- sacrifice, a
      judicious balance of prudence and risk-taking, and other noble
      qualities to be found in the Ten Commandments and the most recent
      checklists from Fort Benning and Fort Leaven worth; but to fully
      engage the learner, such traits must be shown in context. Lists and
      mantras won't do. That is why I increasingly believe that Civil War
      study and battlefield touring are so darn helpful and instructive.
      When you are on the site you can get so much better a feel for what
      the subject was facing and how they may have felt. Besides it is
      always more fun to be outside! I do not mean to be trite but until
      one has sat on Horseshoe Ridge or lingered on Winstead Hill I just do
      not think you can have much appreciation for was really going through
      the leaders mind.
      In evaluating leadership I have generally felt that the best leaders
      get the mission done and care for their soldiers. And yes I do mean
      in that order after all we are talking about military leadership and
      not leadership of a cub scout troop.It seems to me the essence of
      military leadership is timeless and it is to correctly identify or
      understand the mission clearly, plan carefully, train soldiers well,
      and create a climate in which soldiers willingly subordinate their
      individual well-being and private wishes to the well-being and
      mission of the team, crew, company, regiment etc.... The latter may
      be the most important and the greatest challenge to commanders. How
      one establishes the bonding vital to morale of soldiers and
      subordinates alike can be found in archives and official records and
      in the case of civil war units in individual soldiers diaries and
      post war accounts.
      These theories remain in the developmental stages and need to be
      refined but hopefully they make some sense. It seems to me that there
      are five basic ingredients found in most successful leaders. First is
      COURAGE, both of the physical and moral type. Second, WILL which can
      be displayed both by boldness and or perhaps tenacity. Third, and
      this is the hardest to get a handle on -at least for me, I call it,
      INTELLECT. The ability to determine or understand the MISSION and
      the imagination, flexibility, and judgment to identify a way of
      achieving it..Four I call PRESENCE, the ability to inspire others.
      Finally at least in my mind is ENERGY. The physique and physical
      capability and willingness to perform the requisite action. Energy is
      the life support of the other four elements. In fact energy itself
      has no value alone if not coupled with the other essential elements
      but absent the energy the other four elements become meaningless.
      Perhaps by utilizing these five elements you can evaluate some Civil
      War types and determine in your own mind how they measure up?
      Bragg's greatest failings as a leader? It seems to me he clearly
      lacked the flexibility of INTELLECT to adapt to the pressures of a
      changing battle field or campaign. In addition he lacked the
      PRESENCE to inspire a sufficient number of his subordinates to
      accept his leadership and at times he appeared to simply lack the
      physical ENERGY to command.
      Rosecrans? Well it appears that sometime on the afternoon of
      September 20th 1863 he simply ran out of the ENERGY. In addition
      some might argue that he displayed poor INTELLECT in trying to
      determine his mission and attempting to achieve that mission on
      September 20th. Exactly why did he chose to stand and fight on
      September 20th and what was he trying to achieve?
      Regards-
      Wakefield

      P.S. I was one of the tour guides for the War College Staff rides of
      the Vicksburg area in the late 1980s so it is posible we have met
      there.
    • laurarose1886@aol.com
      Fascinating. Will you give a list of CW leaders who you feel meet your litmus test for solid, creative, dynamic and effective generalship no matter what their
      Message 2 of 7 , May 11, 2001
        Fascinating.  Will you give a list of CW leaders who you feel meet your
        litmus test for solid, creative, dynamic and effective generalship no matter
        what their rank.  I'd be very interested in reading your analysis.  

        Thank you,

        Connie Boone
      • FLYNSWEDE@AOL.COM
        In a message dated 5/11/01 7:30:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sdwakefield@prodigy.net writes:
        Message 3 of 7 , May 11, 2001
          In a message dated 5/11/01 7:30:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          sdwakefield@... writes:

          << Leadership for Senior Leaders, defines leadership as
          the "art of direct and indirect influence and the skill of creating
          the conditions for sustained organizational success to achieve the
          desired result." Early 1970s United States Military doctrine was a
          simpler formulation, that leadership was gaining the willing
          cooperation of our troops, but I think the differing definitions are
          compatible. The former reflects the organizational concern of high
          command, the latter the eyeball-to-eyeball relationship in which
          leaders share with their soldiers the hazards and hardships of
          combat. >>

          Leadership is not a singular science study for there are many types and forms
          of leadership. The definition given above for Senior Leaders could also be
          described as the type of leadership Adolph Hitler and Napoleon exhibited.
          They were both very successful leaders, but in both cases, for the wrong
          objectives. You have leadership by authority, by personality, by influence,
          and many other forms. The military command usually utilizes the leadership
          by authority format, but yet, a military leader can also be an excellent or
          poor leader by both authority and personality. Sherman, Grant, Thomas,
          Johnston, Cleburne, and Lee were examples of excellent leaders under
          authority as well as personality. The troops under them would go to Hell and
          back for them. Leonidas Polk is an example of where he had the authority and
          the troops held high respect for him, however his leadership more often lead
          them to defeat, and in that respect, he is considered a poor leader.
          Braxton Bragg, had the authority to lead, but did not have any respect from
          his subordinates, and thus with this lack of respect and incompetant in many
          of the decisions that he made, he also is considered a poor leader.

          On the Atlanta campaign, Sherman's troops did not carry tents with them, nor
          did Sherman. More often, he slept on the ground as they did during the
          marches, allowing himself the only luxuary of a dining fly that he used as
          headquarters. He did however, stay in homes when at certain places where the
          battle lasted for a period of time. In otherwords in many aspects, he did
          not ask his troops to do something that he himself was not willing to do.
          For this, he was well respected by his troops who affectionally called him
          "Uncle Billy".

          In my studies of leadership, this is one strong aspect of good leadership.
          Always never give an order or task that you would not be willing to do
          yourself. Those military commanders of the Civil War that practiced this
          concept were the ones that were most victorius, even in defeat. Johnston,
          Cleburne, Hood (while fighting in the east), A.P Stewart, Jeb Stuart, and
          Lee, et al, were examples of the latter part of this statement.

          Your obedient servant,

          Wayne
        • Margaret D. Blough
          Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com ... On the Atlanta campaign, Sherman s troops did not carry tents with them, nor did Sherman.
          Message 4 of 7 , May 11, 2001
            Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            >[snip}
            On the Atlanta campaign, Sherman's troops did not carry tents with them,
            nor
            did Sherman. More often, he slept on the ground as they did during the
            marches, allowing himself the only luxuary of a dining fly that he used as
            headquarters. He did however, stay in homes when at certain places where
            the
            battle lasted for a period of time. In otherwords in many aspects, he did

            not ask his troops to do something that he himself was not willing to do.
            For this, he was well respected by his troops who affectionally called him
            "Uncle Billy".

            In my studies of leadership, this is one strong aspect of good leadership.

            Always never give an order or task that you would not be willing to do
            yourself. Those military commanders of the Civil War that practiced this
            concept were the ones that were most victorius, even in defeat. Johnston,
            Cleburne, Hood (while fighting in the east), A.P Stewart, Jeb Stuart, and
            Lee, et al, were examples of the latter part of this statement.

            Your obedient servant,

            Wayne

            <
            For a prime example of what not to do in terms of a commander looking
            after himself and not looking after his men, try Earl Van Dorn in the Pea
            Ridge campaign.

            Regards,

            Margaret
          • sdwakefield@prodigy.net
            The examples given by Wayne are of course compelling ones of how some commanders exercised the element of PRESENCE in my crack pot model. Presence as I stated
            Message 5 of 7 , May 11, 2001
              The examples given by Wayne are of course compelling ones of how some
              commanders exercised the element of PRESENCE in my 'crack pot'model.
              Presence as I stated being the ability to inspire confidence or
              willing subordination or cooperation to the leaders' will.
              It is interesting to me to note that Wayne's example of Sherman is a
              perfect example how one size does not fit all, when it comes to the
              element of PRESENCE in an effective leader. While I understand that
              Wayne's statements regarding Sherman sharing the lack of tentage with
              his troops is true, I further understand that Thomas never abandoned
              his regulation head quarters tentage and in fact Sherman , I think ,
              at one point made some 'crack' about Thomas' HQ being referred to by
              the troops as Thomas' BIG TOP. ( I understand a reference to a large
              circus tent.) Yet there is certainly no indication that I am aware of
              that this particular action by Thomas had any adverse effect upon the
              average soldier's of the Army of the Cumberland respect for Thomas or
              willingness to follow him into battle.
              Once again I acknowledge that this whole model is just my own
              developing crack pot notion but as far as Hood goes I might even say
              that after the leg amputation it is possible that he simply did not
              possess the requisite ENERGY to lead. You might recall as I said
              before ENERGY is meaningless without the other elements but the other
              elements are also meaningless without this core element. In Hood's
              case simply the ability to get around was no longer present, and that
              is assuming you do not even talk about the whole issue of possible
              drug use. One could argue that part of the whole Spring Hill problem
              was a direct result of Hood simply lacking the physical ENERGY or
              ability to ride out and see that his orders where being carried out.

              As far as Bishop Polk, well I hate to get started! In my model Polk's
              primary failures as a leader where in my off the cuff opinion
              INTELLECT. Also please keep in mind, as Wayne points out the Bishop
              had some great leadership qualities but where he really was a stinker
              was as a subordinate. When that is the case sometimes you need t look
              at the 'leader' who fails to get cooperation and subordination from
              those be;low him. In short Polk may have been such a crummy
              subordinate at least in part because Bragg was such a lousey leader!
              Polk did not seem to have the same problems under Old Joe Johnston.
              Just some throughts---
              Regards-
              Wakefield
            • FLYNSWEDE@AOL.COM
              In a message dated 5/11/01 4:57:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sdwakefield@prodigy.net writes:
              Message 6 of 7 , May 11, 2001
                In a message dated 5/11/01 4:57:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                sdwakefield@... writes:

                << Yet there is certainly no indication that I am aware of
                that this particular action by Thomas had any adverse effect upon the
                average soldier's of the Army of the Cumberland respect for Thomas or
                willingness to follow him into battle. >>

                Tent or not, Thomas's troops also had a high respect for him. Others in
                other commands might have called him by his West Point nickname - Slow Trot -
                however the troops of the Army of the Cumberland mostly called him Pap
                Thomas. Speculating only on this latter name, I assume that his troops in
                calling him Pap with a reference that he was like a father to them. Thomas
                cared for his men. This is exemplified in several battles, particulary the
                battle of Nashville. He prefered not to send his men wantonlessly into
                harm's way, but made sure that their position was the most advantageous to
                reduce the loss of life or injury. If he had blatantly followed Grant's
                orders to engage in battle immediately when the weather conditions formed
                additional peril to his troops, then the battle of Nashville could had
                possibly have a different outcome. Once again, he was thinking and caring
                for his troops. A sign of positive leadership.

                Your obedient servant,

                Wayne
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.