Without a doubt it was Gen Patton.

He was either always with the "times" or generally ahead of them, he could conceptualize warfare as an Art and could see things that no one else would.

Of course there is no genius that is not flawed but he was a 'real' leader of troops, would always lead from the front and had the uncanny ability to raise an entire Army's morale - which quite frankly lacks these days.

Vikas no doubt innovation, strategy and tactics play an important role but what counts is the 'personality' and 'value system' of the officer that comes to the fore and plays a much important role in the overall scheme of things.

Let me give you an example and this is from personal experience since I was an Officer in the Indian Army - there are two kinds of people in the Army;

1. The Paper tigers
2. The Real tiger's

The first category is very good on the theoretical aspect of warfare and no one can challenge them on tactics or warfare till the time it is conducted on paper but it is another matter when the concepts need to be applied.

The second category is the real Tiger who are 'kings' of the ground they operate and live on. They are fantastic when it comes to both the theoretical & practical aspect of warfare. Men only follow such people because they always lead from the front never ask anything of their troops that they cannot do themselves. They are the real soldiers... They are the real innovators, tacticians, thinkers leaders of men.

To my mind no name comes for your third point, though there are several flawed geniuses who were infamous because of their flaws and not anything else..but still brilliant leaders of men.

Am still wondering why you posted such a question, though quite frankly I loved answering it, Iam an avid follower of Military History.

posted June 20, 2007

Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Ataturk, Saladin, ... so many to choose from...

Alexander the Great - king of Macedon, and one of the most successful military commanders in history. Before his death, he conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks

Julius Caesar - first man to bring an army across the Rubicon and turn the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Not to mention his conquests of Britain, Gaul, and Germania.

Hannibal - universally ranked as one of the greatest military commanders and tacticians in history. He took on the mighty Roman Empire on their home turf, scored an historic blowout at Cannae, and wreaked havoc across Italy for 16 years. As the "father of strategy", even his greatest enemy, Rome, came to adopt elements of his military tactics in their own strategic canon. This praise has earned him a strong reputation in the modern world and he was regarded as a "gifted strategist".

Sun Tzu - was hired as a general, approximately 512 BC, after finishing his military treatise. After Sun Tzu was hired by the King of Wu, the kingdom, previously considered a semi-barbaric state, went on to become the most powerful state of the period by conquering Chu.

posted June 20, 2007

Hi Vikas,

I agree with you on Genghis being unsurpassed in creating an empire in terms of size and speed, but it has turned out that the empire he created was not that sustainable. It is also debatable whether the Mongol empire was a true empire in the sense of exerting influence over conquered peoples, but that is another discussion. So far every empire has sucumbed under the pressures of strategic overstrech and the forces of attraction to challengers, but there are signicant differences in longevity. For me the true mark of succes is not the speed with which an empire is created, nor the size it reaches, but the duration of true empire status. So I would nominate Osman I and his succesors as the founders and protectors of one of the longest lasting empires in history, the Ottoman empire (lasting 623 years), as the most proficient strategists. I am not implying that every Ottoman sultan acted in the best interests of his empire, but the strategic foundations and level of adoption of new technology and new thinking were very strong. The empire grew so strong that, from its apogee, it took challengers more than 230 years to reduce it to post-empire status.

Same goes for business. Of course it is remarkable that a company like Google reaches dominance in minds as well as markets within such a small timeframe, but, on another timescale, it is even more impressive that a company like IBM has been dominant in the IT sector for more than 60 years, by constantly reshaping its strategy and reinventing its portfolio. It takes an artful strategist to navigate and exploit blue oceans, and at the same time remain a dominant and profitable player in a number of red oceans.

posted June 21, 2007

Absolutely the greatest of them all is Kim il Jong, the great leader of North Korea. Why? Well consider this: money for nothing and sex for free...

And the one who is brillant but not succesful: who ever got the US to Iraq...

posted June 25, 2007

In the field, I'd have to say that the most successful was, perhaps, Patton. Not in the sense that Caesar or Hannibal or Sun Tzu were successful. But for one thing, really. He recognized his particular role, played it to the hilt, got people to do things many didn't think were possible, survived and thrived when others of his age and background were being dismissed, and COULD have pretty much taken over all of Europe were it not for the political constraints that were necessary. He made a transition few generals or strategists were ever capable of making - from horses to mechanized warfare, a quantum leap in terms of strategy, tactics, and logistics. In addition, he played a role in improving the communications and coordination with air power, naval batteries, and land batteries during Sicily and Cobra. As his career, and then the war, progressed, he constantly adapted and improved, and was even successful in his one "stalemate" at Metz - he recognized where he went wrong and admitted it.
Patton was even successful OFF the field, as a decoy during the preparations for DDay. His reputation was such the Germans couldn't believe he wouldn't lead the charge, and kept them off balance, never believing Normandy was the actual invasion point.

In second, Nimitz. Pretty much analogous to Patton, but in terms of naval power. Nimitz restructured a navy based on battleships to one based on air power, and elevated the proper strategists to support that plan.

Swede Momsen. Purely for technical reasons. He lacks the stature of so many others, particularly on the field of battle. But the changes he recommended (often ignored, but usually finally taken long after) have resulted in MAJOR changes in naval warfare. His submarine designs are in use today, though considered useless at the time they were suggested. He did much to SAVE men as to kill them. At the same time, he usually offered his own life in pursuit of his goals (though his life was finally lost to cancer) of improved performance and efficiency.

Classical leaders, certainly, are the ones we turn to. They "set the stage", and current strategies (as Patton noted) are all simply improvements due to changed technologies from their plans. However, many of these men weren't capable of looking ahead, envisioning changing times, adapting to them, improving on what they had, etc. Patton, alone, paid his respects to the great leaders through emulation, but put his own twist on things.


I do respect the concept of looking at peacemakers. I studied Gandhi in college many years ago. However, it's worth noting the peacemakers often left their own considerable bodycount. While these deaths were not their fault, per se (they didn't kill these people, let alone set out to kill them), they CAUSED these deaths because they felt the pursuit of peaceful resistance was a morally superior approach, while their opponents did not. In either case, the outcomes were usually similar - successful warmakers got what they wanted, as did successful peacemakers. But both left considerable numbers of dead. One was just honest about how they were choosing to sacrifice the lives of their men, while the other was honest about the morality of their position.

In terms of business....the warmaker has a superior role. Because, ultimately, every peace is the result of war. And the degree of that peace is a result of the degree to which that war infected the population with the desire for a deeper peace.
Peace is not the result of peace, and can never be, as long as one person who claims to want peace openly claims that the loss of life is acceptable (as we see today in the Mid East with the Islamofascists, a not too dissimilar position from the Japanese militarists of pre WWII). These people will "work" for peace while preparing for war.
Modern business is not dissimilar from modern US military strategy - be prepared for war, but work on diplomacy and accept compromise.

posted June 26, 2007

Ronald Reagan

-- he did it well
-- he did it on a budget
-- he did it on-time
-- he did the impossible
-- he didn't have to kill anybody
-- he didn't need the CIA
-- he didn't need the military

posted June 26, 2007

I would nominate the obvious big three: Alexander, Ceasar and Napoleon.

Even Napoleon looked up to and admired Alexander.

I would add Sun Tzu too but I do not know about his generalship as opposed to what he wrote.

You could also put in Clausewitz but he never commanded in the field.

I would vote for Hannibal as the most brilliant yet ultimately unsuccessful general.

Marc

posted June 20, 2007

If you are attempting to draw parallels to busines strategy, I would strongly suggest looking at peacemakers, instead:

Mohandas Ghandi
Martin Luther King, Jr.
His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama

Turning to military-inspired behaviors suggests that business success is purely made of either-or decisions and winner-takes-all conflicts, while it is more often made from the synergies of diverse viewpoints.

Namaste,
David

posted June 20, 2007