On War and Leadership: The Words of Combat Commanders from Frederick the Great to Norman Schwarzkopf

Introduction

THIS IS an anthology of the thoughts on leadership of combat commanders--twenty in all--over the past 250 years. Their written (or spoken) words are quoted from primary sources--translated where necessary. They are Western leaders, save Vo Nguyen Giap (a North Vietnamese general) and perhaps Moshe Dayan (an Israeli commander but European in culture and training). The views of warriors may help balance the scale of military thought, which, since the fall of Napoleon, has been tipped heavily toward theory by a surfeit of books, beginning with Carl von Clausewitz's Vom Kriege (1832)1 and Antoine de Jomini's Pr�cis de l'art de la guerre (1838).2

This collection should allow historians in general to try to discern (or divine) the commanders' ontological, epistemological, and teleological views (their hermeneutics are traditional), and surely be useful to military historians and their readers. It should also be of interest to people in all walks of life who make executive decisions, civil or military; they can compare their management and leadership ideas with those of military masters.

The leaders I have chosen all belong to what has been termed the "muddy boots" school of leadership.3 This, of course, reflects my personal predilection. Among my choices, personalities vary from charismatic to enigmatic to stern to outwardly hateful (e.g., Joseph Stilwell, called "Vinegar Joe"). But these men all led from the front. This was true of Frederick the Great, Napoleon, and the others, whether (at the time their leadership is examined) they were at the head of armies (Sherman, Rommel, Patton, Ridgway); brigades or corps (Stonewall Jackson), battalions (Harold Moore, Nick Vaux), or guerrilla bands (Lawrence of Arabia, John Mosby), or had experience at both lower and higher command (DeGaulle, Manstein, Slim, Montgomery, Moshe Dayan, Giap, and Schwarzkopf). They were all also improvisors, believers in single command, and mildly or flagrantly eccentric.

Naturally, not all worthy commanders are quoted herein. Another writer might have chosen differently, and surely many of the best left no records because they were killed or lacked the talent, inclination, or personality to write or dictate their ideas.4 The Elder Helmuth von Moltke does not figure in this collection because his chief work was perfecting the Prussian general staff. Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee of the American Civil War are passed over because neither addressed leadership issues in a forthright way; Sherman did and is included; he also represents what has been called the "American way of war."5 Soviet Marshal Georgii Konstantinovich Zhukov, of World War II, is also omitted, because he attributes his successes to Josef Stalin and the Communist Party and his own leadership techniques are obscure. Vo Nguyen Giap shows the same tendencies as Zhukov, but is quoted, since he was both a Communist Party leader and North Vietnam's generalissimo--and also because of continuing American and Western interest in the Vietnam War. Other selections or exclusions were made on similar bases, or represent personal choices, or, in part, the urge to give voice to reviled commanders (e.g., Wavell and Stilwell), who did well, considering their circumstances, missions, and limited resources.

Some of our commanders (e.g., Stonewall Jackson, Erwin Rommel) fought in wars that were lost because their countries lacked effective political leadership, or economic resources, or industry, or manpower, or allies, or all of these. Others led their troops well, but lost because their societies were defeatist or defensive-minded (e.g., DeGaulle in France in 1940),6 or divided over support of a war (e.g., Schwarzkopf--among hundreds of other dedicated officers and NCOs--as a battalion commander in Vietnam).

All were effective in their time, in their war, with the troops they led. I have put the commanders in chronological order because it seemed better to attach commanders to particular wars, of which readers would have some knowledge, rather than put them in categories. For example, a guerrilla category would include Mosby and Lawrence; there were similarities in their operations, but their wars and the societies and cultures that produced the commanders and their troops were radically different. Mosby and his rangers and rebel sympathizers are presented in the context of the American Civil War, and Lawrence and his Bedouins that of the First World War in the Middle East. In all cases, the sociocultural milieu of troops--especially in mass warfare--has had a marked effect on national or coalition power.

Of course there have been dramatic changes in war over more than two centuries, which must be taken into account. As governments and societies changed, so did war. Populations increased worldwide--44 to 100% in European nations during the eighteenth century--and the trend continued, agriculture became more technical, enabling ever fewer farmers to feed nations; labor was available for industry, and opportunity bred entrepreneurs. Ever larger armies could be fed and equipped. The same developments spawned democratic revolutions.7 With the spread of democracy, governments, whether authoritarian or representative, felt justified to draft citizens to fight and to demand universal support of war efforts. As scientific and technical knowledge and industrial skill and capacity increased, armed forces took advantage of new "tools of war." Wars have accelerated discovery and innovation when nations have put their resources behind research. For example, the development of nuclear power, space exploration, and satellite communication since 1945 has been based on advances in nuclear science, electronics, and rocketry during World War II.8

The Changing Nature of War

The major changes in warfare since 1740 have derived from or been necessitated by the ever burgeoning size of armed forces through World War II (1939-45), followed by the reduction since 1945 of forces actually deployed; improvements in weaponry, communications and transportation; and the escalating need for armies to cooperate closely with navies and air forces. The trend through 1945 was toward total war; since 1945, toward limited war. We shall treat these changes chronologically.