‘Classical’ Leadership in War
By Alexander Daley, Second-year Classics
The study of what makes an effective leader goes back as far as we have had records of exemplary figures. The study of military theory has become something of a science, with Clausewitz’s On War seeking to meticulously describe the nature and theory of war as a realist concept and Jomini’s Summary of the Art of War selling the reader ‘fundamental maxims’ for sure-fire success on the field of battle. Yet it is possible for military theorists to look even further back for inspiration, to a distinctly ‘classical’ form of which the epitome must be Alexander the Great. Alexander was held as the gold standard for what John Keegan terms ‘heroic leadership’. In a reign of just 13 years, Alexander had conquered land over 3 continents, entirely annexed the hegemon of his day and created a sprawling empire of some 2 million square miles.
Alexander’s education was defined by the Homeric myths. His father claimed descent from Heracles, son of Zeus. This inevitably created a man of heroic courage, determination and ‘more self-confidence than was usual’. Despite being their sovereign, Alexander had to win the respect of his army to maintain his legitimacy. As Keegan records: ‘To keep the regard of such men, the war leader had constantly to excel – not only in battle but in the hunting field, in horsemanship or skill at arms, in love, in conversation, in boast and challenge, and in the marathon bouts of feasting and drinking that were the hero’s repos de guerrier’. This created a standard of leadership centred on the heroic virtues of Achilles and Odysseus, which placed disproportionate value on appearances and impressions. Indeed, if we are to claim the existence of a distinctly ‘classical’ form of leadership than theatrics would be one of its most distinctive elements. Several examples show that he ‘had the artist’s sense of how to dramatize his own behaviour…when he detected the opportunity to play the prima donna as a means of enhancing his own legend.’ His cutting of the Gordian knot and the taming of Bucephalus disseminated the idea that he was both practical and impatient in the case of the former as well as courageous and intelligent in the case of the latter. Following the siege of Multan in 325BC, in which he had been badly wounded after a reckless single handed assault on the city’s walls, Arrian recorded that he allowed rumours of his death to spread unabated before having himself ‘carried aboard ship, floated down river and brought into sight of the army and his person exposed to view’. This supposed resurrection left an impression on his troops, who Arrian records as ‘crying tears of joy and relief’. Furthermore, on the field of battle, he ‘dressed in a special and conspicuous style’ and always lead from the front, as is evidenced from the 8 wounds he himself took in battle. Stark contrast to the modern leader, of ‘unostentatious appearance …theirs was a style of leadership reflective and managerial rather than heroic; they were to ‘lead’ from the rear’. This had great value as ‘the knowledge that he was risking his own skin with theirs was enough to ensure that the whole army…fought with an energy equal to his’. Exposure was a vital aspect of the classical leader. Indeed, the constantly precarious situation Alexander’s force faced deep in enemy territory, and his sense of personal authority that disparaged much delegation meant he was more personally exposed than any other general, classical or modern. He was also a master of the ancient art of oratory, a requirement for anyone aspiring for public office or a leadership position in the ancient world, considered even ‘a semi-divine gift’. Before Issus he bade his soldiers ‘be good men and true, calling aloud the names with all proper distinctions not only of the commanders, but even squadron leaders and captains, as well as any of the mercenaries who were conspicuous for rank or any deed of valour’.
In his definition of a military ‘genius’, Clausewitz lays down the necessity for those in command to act effectively within an environment where ‘three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty’. To do this one requires coup d’oeil – ‘quick recognition of a truth that the mind would ordinarily miss or would perceive only after long study and reflection’ – as well as determination – the ability to ‘limit the agonies of doubt and the perils of hesitation when the motives for action are inadequate’. Alexander certainly possessed coup d’oeil, as was seen by his incisive use of the oblique order against Darius’ larger force at Gaugamela and his subsequent ability to expose gaps created in the Persian lines to tear apart a superior force. He was certainly determined as well, charging across a river at the strongest wing of the Persian army at Granicus against the advice of his premier military advisor Parmenio. The ferocity of which so surprised the Persians that they quickly collapsed against the onslaught.
Yet the heroic leader takes risks that Clausewitz would repudiate. Alexander’s presence on the front lines meant that his ability to lead the army effectively collapsed as soon as the fighting began and his habit of attacking ‘precisely at the point the army had sought to make most difficult’ was the mark of a man ‘who disbelieves his own mortality’. Jomini likewise defines the ideal leader as one possessing a particular list of virtues: ‘pride, self-esteem, honour, bravery, sagacity, courage, loyalty and honour’. However, Jomini believed that these virtues aren’t innate or a sign of divine favour but can be rote learnt. Combined with the necessary knowledge of the Art of War anyone could become a leader, a radical departure from the classical, as leadership truly became a science instead of a natural born skill. Therefore, there is a strong case to consider the existence of a distinct ‘classical’ form of leadership.
It was required of the hero that they develop legendary initiative and courage, virtues just as important for today, as General A.P. Wavell states: “mobility is dependent mainly on the personal will and determination of the commander-in-chief, which alone can keep alive the impetus of the troops”. The classical leader was also hungry for knowledge and intelligence, for as a child at his father’s court Alexander had ‘questioned visitors from distant places about the topography of their homelands’. Alexander furthermore developed something along the lines of a general staff in the form of his Companions. Indeed, contact between the ranks and the collecting of evidence to form the most efficient plan of action was important within Alexander’s conception of battlefield leadership: ‘Reconnaissance and a staff discussion preceded the advance to contact’. The ability to use theatre and a strong grasp of oratory to inspire loyalty and courage in one’s subordinates are aspects of leadership particularly unique to the ‘classical’ leader.
. As Keegan points out ‘the Macedonian army was not a head without a body…the secondary components were treated with an esteem by their leader proper to their quality’. It can be rightly said that ‘Alexander sought to lead by indulgence as well as by example’. Early on in his Asian campaign he granted ‘compassionate leave’ to those Macedonian soldiers recently married, so they may ‘spend the winter with their wives…He gained as much popularity by this act as by any other’. Before the major battles of Issus and Gaugemela he ensured his troops were well fed and rested. Following Granicus, he “showed much concern for about the wounded, visiting each, examining their wounds, asking how they were received.” Curtius recalled an anecdote whereby on the eve of Gaugamela, Alexander slept peacefully into the later hours of the morning. Only when the enemy were seen to advance towards their position did Parmenio wake up his commander. Alexander, untroubled by events exhumed a sense of confidence in the army’s ability to win the day. For ‘sleep in the face of danger, even if feigned, is a magnificent gesture of reassurance to subordinates’. The ability to understand the emotional needs of subordinates and display compassion in such a manner is a valuable blueprint.
The Greeks and Romans looked to examples of virtue and leadership less in scientific manuals and more in case studies. Alexander is no different. N.E.L Hammond presents the inevitable vices of the classical hero: ‘his overweening ambition, his remorseless will, his passionate indulgence in unrestrained emotion, his readiness to kill in combat, in passion and in cold blood and to have rebellious communities destroyed. He had many of the qualities of the noble savage’. But whilst we may not approve today of their politics and social conventions, there is much we can still learn in leadership from the ‘classical’ hero.
Bibliography
Keegan, John. 1986 The Mask of Command
Clausewitz, Carl Von. On War
Cumbie, Donovan. The Concept of Command Leadership in the Military Classics: