Great leaders and why

[Orval]

 

Hello to all,

 

Alan and I had a short discussion on British Major General Orde Wingate and his accomplishments during WWII.  In that same frame of thought I decided to ask who you might consider the as being a great leader or general in the last 1000 years and why you believe them to be great. 

Wingate died at age 41 yet left an indelible mark on every country and continent he touched, including Israel, Ethiopia, Italy, Great Britain, America and Burma.

I hope many will participate in this discussion, it should be fun

[Alan]

Looking forward to the discussion. Let me put my thinking cap on and see if any worthwhile contribution comes forth.

[Invicta]

Allenby.

[Orval]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

Allenby.

Invicta,

Field Marshall Allenby is well known in Britain but would you mind expressing your reasons for naming a great leader as opposed to just a leader?

Thank you

[HappyChristian]

George Washington.  A Christian and moral man. Knew strategy and wasn't afraid to retreat if necessary. Wise. Discreet. Self-controlled. Ah, for a man with half his character at the helm of our country.

[Orval]

I certainly agree with the moral character and commanding presence of the man, George Washington.  But I would probably disagree with you on his abilities as a strategist, in his book "1776" David McCullough states that Washington had a poor grasp of battle ground strategy and was defeated in a large portion of his encounters with the British.  Since I have read very little on the man in question, I cannot speak to any other shortcoming other than to say I am thankful he was there to lead our nation in its infancy I cannot imagine the hardship he encountered nor the tenacious qualities of self sacrifice he commanded by those who followed him including the Frenchman the Marquis de Lafayette who invested his life and wealth to the command of Washington.

Indeed to have a man such as Washington at the helm of America today would be refreshing to the people of America.

Thanks for your post Happy.

 

 

  

[HappyChristian]

I think McCullough is a good author, but - and this is my opinion - it is only his opinion that WN was not a good strategist. HIs strategic ability began showing itself during the French and Indian War. Had Braddock listened to him, Braddock would likely not have died. 

One thing that Wn did well was use retreat as a strategy. Yes, I know - many people look on retreat as cowardice. But he saved the remaining troops under Braddock by ordering retreat. And he used retreat as a strategy a few times during the War for Independence. 

Here are some links to other opinions:

https://hbr.org/2014/02/three-decisions-that-defined-george-washingtons-leadership-legacy

This one is a good bit longer, but also more detailed. 

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/history/articles/george-washington-genius-in-leadership/

He may have lost more battles than he won, but he won the war. That's genius, right there. ;)

[fastjav390]

Washington did great with what little he had at his disposal. It's hard to carry out any great campaigns when you don't have weapons, food, men or finances to support  it. What he was really great at is patience, taking advantage of opportunities  and recognizing other great leaders to place in various roles of leadership.