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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Could I have More?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , May 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 7 , May 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 7 , May 11, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 7 , May 11, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 7 , May 11, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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.