The term derived from Ares pleasure and delight, but as well his incredible skills in war. Ares, is nothing but the personification of bold force and strength, and not so much the god of war as of its tumult, confusion, and horrors. Carl von Clausewitz called Napoleon the “god of war”. The quote “god of war” coming from Clausewitz`s book “on war”, is in my opinion quite accurate, regarding Napoleons tactical and motivational skills. Because of those Napoleon can be seen as one of the greatest Generals that ever lived.
He then takes 318 of his man to face one of the local military superpowers and wins through creating confusion by attacking from several directions at night. Religious people might say that his victory was not won just because he was a brilliant military leader but also because he had the blessing of God, much like Odysseus who had the blessing and support of
He was a very experienced and ruthless military commander, ruler and administrator who had unified Normandy and inspired fear and respect outside of his duty. From a young age he had learnt that in order to survive he had to ‘meet force with force’ – a lesson he had learnt from the assassinations attempts he endured after being named Duke of Normandy at aged 7. His frequent practice of this belief – in every battle he fought, including that against the unruly barons who had tried to assassinate him – shows that William believed military tactics an skills were important to succeed in life and so had the upper hand when it came to the Battle of Hastings, and his persistent bravery in the face of danger led to his reputation of being a skilled and successful battle leader. Furthermore, William knew that his cavalry was extremely important and had learnt this from previous battles he had fought, e.g. at Civitate in 1053 where the skilled and co-ordinated use of lances while on horse led to a Norman victory over the Germans.
General George B. McClellan: A Critical Analysis There is perhaps no other military leader connected with the American Civil War that created so much interest and caused so much controversy as George B. McClellan. His ability to organize and build a military was among the best in history. However, his ability to lead and fight has always been seriously questioned. Because his legacy was so widespread, we will look at and compare the timeframe from his appointment to General of the Army of the Potomac/General in Chief to his relief from command by President Lincoln. The authors we will compare are; James McPherson, Stuart Sifakis, and Ethan S. Rafuse.
He always had a special charm, which resulted in him climbing the “military ladder” so quickly, so to speak. He was also a very manipulative person, but not in the horrendous way. He was able to use his persuasive abilities to gain trust and support of the citizens of France and the military. Out of all the positive traits that made Napoleon successful, I truly believe that it was his overall intelligence that provided him such great accomplishments. He always loved to read, especially through his teen years, which
The Battle Of Granicus: Alexander the great was a powerful leader and one of the greatest generals to have ever lived. His abilities are shown not just through his personality but through his military tactics and battle logistics. The battle that is a key example of Alexander’s military superiority is the battle of Granicus. This important battle not only shows the Alexander’s military abilities but it also shows all the key factors that helped him to win the battle. The key factors that eventually lead to Alexander winning this great battle are tactics, weapons & armour, topography, discipline and strategy.
. . preferred fighting to anything. "1 John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, loved the battlefield and this coupled with his military genius enabled him to defeat the French on every confrontation. One of the best examples of the Duke's outstanding generalship is Ramillies.
One of the best examples that I can think of is when Beowulf fought Grendel and won. He stood bravely infront of the monster Grendel, and fought gallantly to victory. Without that time of terror, Beowulf’s true colors of Heroism would not have shown. To sum up everything that I just said, I think that Emerson would consider Beowulf a hero due to all of the battles that he fought gallantly and won. Not once in the story did Beowulf show a sign of weakness, even without any armor, he still fought bravely and
“Really, coaching is simplicity. It’s getting players to play better than they think that they can.” Great words of legendary Dallas Cowboys head coach Tom Landry. In reality, leadership is one of the most important aspects of being a military member of any kind. If Chiefs are under the impression that we have accomplished the pinnacle of individual success, we are missing the big picture. Choosing to take a different outlook, I believe that true leadership is maximizing what the military gives us and implementing it to improve sailors.
Glory/Honour Henry V Henry was a very great leader and led his men very well. To help his men overcome the terrifying prospect of war he would exaggerate the honour and Glory in fighting this (as appeared) losing battle. He used motivating speeches such as the speech at Agincourt where the stakes were up against the men and were highly outnumbered and Henry emphasise the mark of Honour they will be able to carry round them for ever such as “The fewer men, the greater men share of honour”, which shows as they are outnumbered the honour is greater when they defeat their opposition. In Henry V, Henry speaks of the men’s names being remembered through time and never forgotten and spoken in households, “Then shall our names, familiar in his mouth as