It is clear that some distinct changes have occurred in regard to the nature of leadership, essentially as a response to developments resulting from the fundamental but dramatic increase in scale. Operating under these new conditions made command into a far more complicated and pressured situation, as control was so difficult to maintain over vast areas and armies. In spite of the complexities of the issue; in real terms the change in the nature of leadership can be expressed fairly simply as stemming from the increase in the physical distance from battle. Fuller wrote about this topic with a great passion as he recognized its widespread emotional implications for the soldiers of vast armies. The changes in the approach to leadership were perhaps an inevitable response to increased scale and mechanization, but Fuller argues that the changes in this uniquely human element were the most damaging to the lives of the soldiers, which understandably became a more pressing concern given the emotional draw of the vast nature of the slaughter of volunteer soldiers. He wrote, “The more management, or command, became methodized, the more dehumanized each grew; the worker, or the soldier, becoming a cog in a vast soulless machine was de-spiritualized”, to powerfully link the change in leadership to this most detrimental psychological consequence upon the soldiers who actually fought for their countries. “Once, the soldier had seen those whom he obeyed … standing beside him in the ranks…facing death with him.”, “the personal factor was gone, the man was left without a master, without a true master - the general in flesh and blood, who could see, who could hear, who could watch, who could feel, who could swear and curse, praise and acclaim, and above all who risked his life with his men, and not merely issued orders mechanically from some well-hidden headquarters miles and miles to the rear”
His assessment that, “the more mechanical become the weapons with which we fight, the less mechanical must be the spirit which controls them,” displays a real sympathy for the soldiers but is ultimately an unrealistic ideal to uphold because the breakdown of personal relationships between general and soldier and an effective mechanization of mind was an essentially unconscious and “natural” response to a world changed by the pervasive force of technological advance. With war on such vast scale it was impossible for personal involvement to be maintained and the effective delegation to an efficient and respected officer class was therefore crucial because, while the small unit cohesion of Pal’s Battalions could go some way to ensuring morale, ultimately a structure was needed to maintain discipline. From personal experience, Fuller also accounted for the significant boost to collective morale which could be achieved simply through the presence of Commander-in-Chief. From a modern and cynical perspective such visits to the trenches may seem rather hollow gestures, and undoubtedly no soldier could have expected this to be a permanent arrangement because of their recognition of the importance of insuring the health of the leader throughout crucial encounters. However, it is easy to underestimate the effect that such a presence could have to the confidence of the soldiers; with the rarity of the occasions helping to imbue them with a sense of real significance which was key to the motivational benefit.
The factor of distance both physical and emotional between the General and his men became associated, within Fuller’s judgement, with a criticism of the ageing of leaders in this kind of warfare. This was one of the main concerns in Fuller’s review, but across the whole period I would argue that it is difficult to draw any conclusive decision upon which quality, be it age or experience, has provided more success. Perhaps, in the earliest stages of the period and a bygone era, the vigor of youth could be more closely linked with success in battle as the role of leadership as encapsulated by figures such as Napoleon, who were required to combine tactical nous with levels of physical fitness and stamina. In the context of chateaux Generalship the physical conditioning of the individual was not a significant issue and it was the distance from the battlefield which allowed for the average age of leaders to creep up gradually. In this period where strategy and long drawn out battle plans were the foundation of military procedure, it was perhaps inevitable that people would come to revere the qualities of associated with age, of experience and an understanding of military tactics founded upon a solid understanding of the history and their own personal experiences
The qualities of a good General are inevitably far more difficult to pin down than some would suggest in statements attesting for the singular importance of either youth or experience. The greatest Generals have possessed special human qualities which are vital to ensuring that vast numbers of men will be prepared to fight for the cause that they preach. Communicating the message with the utmost emotional impact relies as I have discussed, upon shared risk, but also on a number of other rare and valuable characteristics which can be found in the likes of Napoleon and Wellington whose military successes have defined eras in their approach. One important task for the General is in communicating their individual passion for the cause and instilling this seem will to succeed in the minds of their men. Napoleon was a leader who very much epitomized a clear cause for which to fight and in many ways his success may have been enabled by the surrounding ideological fervor which reduced the burden of motivation to some extent. The communication of ideas may be aided by remarkable oratory skills, which combined with their individual sense of mystique creates fundamental confidence in the General to lead the men to victory. In the circumstances of men like Napoleon and Wellington however, much of their ability to inspire confidence rested upon physical displays of their bravery and fortitude and an ability to keep a cool head in the heat of battle. Hitler may be seen as the prime example of a leader determined to fulfill a long held ideology through war, it is often in the individual quality of the leader rather in the cause that the men have to believe. Hitler was an inspirational leader in this way and his oratory skills are renowned but ultimately his vigor in achieving his goals endangered his ability to make rational judgements and even if his soldiers maintained the faith in him, they were destined to failure because of his stubborn approach and lack of much needed pragmatism and flexibility. His failure may be tied closely to the role of chateau General as his lack of day to day involvement, while granting a broader overview, meant he was detached from the soldiers experiences and was able to generate strategic means to live up to the ambition of ideology.
Particular in an era of technological advancements which made weapons more effective at a greater range, the position that Bonaparte took up on the battlefield was increasingly threatening to his own health, with his list of injuries powerfully illustrating the perils of leading from the front. These injuries however only served to enhance his reputation amongst his troops, because for all his passion and energy, Napoleon could not have inspired the admiration and unflinching respect of his men without being seen to share fully in the risks which they faced. Keegan argues that one of most crucial undermining influence of the success of a relationship between a general and the common soldier is a prominent risk disparity. No matter how well prepared a general is, no matter how efficient and creative he is in terms of tactics and strategy, the one key element which is the foundation of any military success is inevitably human. And in this aspect things become inherently more complicated and delicate than mere logistics, with the psychological element so crucial to inspiring the confidence of men and instilling in each individual the determination to fight for the collective unit. In increasingly ideological wars, this task could arguably become rather less demanding, but nonetheless creating a personal relationship is a far more powerful incentive to fight than a grander ideology which fails to appeal to a more personal human emotion. Generals may approach the difficult task of motivation in various ways, but these methods are arguably down to personal preference than any other concern and we cannot judge a firm disciplinarian to be more effective than a General who is more approachable and involved with individual soldiers. We may assert that any good general should be able to mix and match and show flexibility in this sphere to match their tactical approach, but whatever the approach men will not be convinced if the general faces no personal risk. If the soldiers are not able to see that their leader is potentially sacrificing his own life, the relationship and the potential for whole-hearted commitment is irreparably stunted.
The era after Napoleon’s dominance was ended, arguably saw a new approach to Generalship emerge as the most prominent and successful in that age of warfare. Two of the chief exponents of this approach were Wellington and Grant, facing entirely different circumstances but applying what can essentially be seen as a compromise and a convenient mid way stage in the evolution of Generalship from the inspirational frontline performances of the youthful Napoleon to the Chateau Generals of the 20th century. The role which was carved out by such leaders may be described as a form of crisis management; adopting a position on the battlefield from which they could oversee proceedings and step in wherever their expertise could be most effective in altering the outcome of the battle. Although flexibility underpinned the strength of this approach, both Generals importantly also had a subtle understanding of their own army and how men should be best deployed. Wellington perhaps exemplified this quality most clearly at Waterloo, through the selections he made based upon a fair and realistic estimation of the capabilities of the various elements within his ranks. The ability of Wellington and Grant in this task was founded upon special human qualities and an ability to act calmly and decisively and use their experience to calculate precisely where their presence could be most effectively deployed. In this compromised system, communication with officers was vital to understanding the current situation and allowing actions to be made appropriately. Although the means available to them varied significantly, they benefitted from an equal flow of information in opposite directions which enabled the picture to be understood and then effectively managed. Grant was able to make the best use of technology to enhance the opportunities for reliable and up to date information being communicated. Laying telegraph lines behind wherever the leading army went, Grant was able to establish a communication network which allowed real time reports from of to 500miles away. The mobility and reliability of this technology meant that he was able to keep a fantastic level of control given the scale on which he was proceeding.
The relationships of Wellington and Grant with their men are very interesting and worth further examination as to how they fit into the typical ideas of how an order of respect and discipline is established. The extent of their physical involvement did not detract from the mystique which surrounded them, the unfathomable aura which is required to establish a level of admiration amongst the men. Though Grant would stay close enough to the front line to intervene when necessary and use his experience and tactical decisiveness to change the momentum of a battle, in general terms he maintained a certain distance from his men. In many ways, some kind of distance is necessary on an emotional level to ensure that he is regarded above the level of the typical soldier so that his decisions are never questioned. To this end, the armies of Grant and Wellington made use of a staff which acted as a permeable membrane by which the overall mystique of the General can be maintained in addition to a certain approachability via the visible chain of command. Grant constructed an officer class of amateurs, who had worked in a range of non military professions and this was frequently a concern on the battle as he did not trust fully in their ability to make the right calls and maintain the order of their divisions. Nonetheless, and in spite of occasions where he was called to intervene personally where delegation should have been a possibility, the officers performed an important duty in extending his presence across the battlefield and allowing the soldiers to feel his involvement at every stage through them. Just as Grant often berated his Wellington had to cope with officers who although brave and loyal were ultimately fairly incompetent. Wellington’s relationship with his men is widely discussed because he famously referred to his soldiers as the “scum of the earth”, but although this does not seem a likely way to endear yourself, it was representative of his position firmly established above the men and the aura he had while also treating his men with genuine care and sympathy.
The changes to Generalship across this period have been an inevitable response to dramatic shift in the way war is conducted more generally and how it is perceived in society. The retreat of the Chateau Generals was an entirely logical move made to ensure their health at a time when stability was such an essential element. The vast scale of 20th century conflict placed an unprecedented burden of responsibility in the hands of the Generals and in this task it is understandable that ‘Old Heads’ were favored over younger alternatives. But in my assessment of the nature of leadership across the period I would address the more significant and fundamental continuities. Principles of leadership are much debated because the individuals who perform so brilliantly possess qualities that most people cannot fully understand and as such find difficult to pin down. The element of charisma and personality of the leader is one element which transcends any factor such as age, and has been the vital element in success throughout history. Practical considerations and tactical flexibility of course are crucial, but, particularly in an age of such mass participation, surely the factor of individual and collective motivation obtains even greater significance as the margins in other areas are reduced. Napoleon and other such innovators in the tactical dimension will always be caught up eventually, but the qualities of a good leader remain unshakeable and can be adapted to fit the very changeable processes of war.