COMPARISONOF MILITARY LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT THE AGES Essay -- essays r

COMPARISONOF MILITARY LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT THE AGESNo leader should dumbfound troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. only if a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never sum again into being nor can the dead ever be brought post to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader is full of caution.- lie Tzu IntroductionTommy Franks, general of the American Army states that soldeirs should have a mettle any(prenominal) competance in their workplace, argon caring, direct to their peers and sub-ordinates, hard and tough in both conditions, thoughtful to the people of all and most importantly a leader. He states You would have to be a coward if you were a commander and you were not shocked for your men. Understanding that statement prima(p) is not the same in all levels. Majors and Leuitenant Colenels are not leading a voice into battle, but on the flip side you dont break a lance co rporal moving battalions stragecally over the battlefield. This is the fact that leaders of all levels sometimes forget, that everyone in the army is a leader of some reward.Although there are obviously many inspiring leaders, although the following leaders chosen have different appraoaches to the way that they led their country. These leaders set up the way that you can bring a country from posture to strength with leadership skills. These include the up and down life of Sadaam Hussein, Triumph and liberation of Adolf Hitler, the coming from nothing to the seduction Napoleon and finally the comparison of the enceinte to the poor leaders.This essay give enlighten the issues of leadership of well cognize leaders and equate them with the text leader from the Australian point of veiw. It will also bring current leaders into a perspective to compare them with the leaders of yesteryear and provide an argument where they may have bypast wrong.What is a leader?Australian Defence force definiton of leadership is leadership is the continuous influencing and directing of men in tasks which they accomplish their willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyalty in the manner urged by the leader. Qualities of leadership involve leading by example with the use of the following traits Motivation, Courage physical and moral, Decisiveness, Responsibility, iniative, integrity, judgement, knowledge, loyalty, self-sacrifice ... ...e and has no integrity. Saddam did show a lot of initative though, ordering his armies into neighbouring countries and conquering them. On the other hand Napoleon and black lovage the Great are very similar in their leadership traits. This is because Napolean studied many battles of Alexander and moulded himself to act like the leaders of that era. Alexander was the break through of engineering with the long bow and cavalry, where as Napoleon proved Sun Tzu 1963, The graphics of state of war (translated by S. Griffith), Oxford Universit y Press, London, p.10 Most influential people of the knowledge domain dor 2003. 2030 9th Jan 2004 Channel 10as supraLeadership Theory and figure - greenas aboveSmall Unit leadershipRitter, S. and Riverspit, W. 2002, War on Iraq What team Bush doesnt want you to know, Context Books, revolutionary York p. 5Harris, B. 2003, URL www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm Ritter,Brevic, M 1999, Warfare Alexander the Great, Digital dishonour p. 2URLhttp//www.pvv.ntnu.no/madsb/home/war/alex/ General Failings URLhttp//www.insead.fr/mauborgne/newsppracticles/FT/FT%20General%20Failings%20061202.htmas aboveas aboveas aboveas aboveas aboveBrevikas aboveas aboveBrevic