NationStates Jolt Archive

What is in a man that compels others to follow his lead? Throughout history there are a plethora amazing stories of the consequences of brilliant leadership, involving everyone from the leaders of ancient Greece to modern-day men such as Winston Churchill.

One of my favorite stories is that of Napoleon's first return from exile, which is chronicled so:

“At Grenoble there was a show of resistance. Napoleon went directly
to the soldiers, followed by his guard.

"Here I am; you know me. If there is a soldier among you who wishes
to kill his emperor, let him do it."

"Long live the emperor!" was the answer; and in a twinkle six
thousand men had torn off their white cockades and replaced them by old
soiled tricolors. They drew them from the inside of their caps, where
they had been concealing them since the exile of their hero. "It is the
same that I wore at Austerlitz," said one as he passed the emperor.
"This," said another, "I had at Marengo."

http://history-world.org/napoleon21.htm

My question, inspired by such actions as these is: What makes a leader, not just fit for service, but able to inspire in their subjects, motivations and achievements which defy imagination? What traits are ideal for a leader?

And who iyo- Is the greatest leader in history?

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490618), and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490419).
Napoleon happens to be my all-time favorite leader.

Not all leaders are completely dedicated to the people of their own country. In fact, in a world with a more closely connected international community, wouldnt you agree that a leader that cares only for his own people impedes their benifits?

However, this may be how a leader gains popularity in the first place but caring for the people can only get you so far. Many failed leaders believed they acted in the best interest of their people.

Not all leaders are completely dedicated to the people of their own country. In fact, in a world with a more closely connected international community, wouldnt you agree that a leader that cares only for his own people impedes their benifits?

However, this may be how a leader gains popularity in the first place but caring for the people can only get you so far. Many failed leaders believed they acted in the best interest of their people.
Absoulutely. Are you a Machiavelli reader? Because you sure sound like one.

Absoulutely. Are you a Machiavelli reader? Because you sure sound like one.

Im very familiar with his works and their underlying themes, but I havent really had the chance to actually sit down and analyze his works. I was under the impression though, that he believed the people of the given state were the most important asset- whereas I suggested that idea is a little outdated in a globalist world.

Of course, I personally dont believe that human progress is always made in a forward direction. I dont think I am any smarter than Macheavelli, or even people before him. There is certainly something to be said for inert ideas in our modern world

Back on topic though:

Does Macheavelli's model still hold true? It certainly mirrors many of the great leaders I have studied, but not all of them.

Does Macheavelli's model still hold true? It certainly mirrors many of the great leaders I have studied, but not all of them.
Well, it all depends on which book "The Prince", or "The Discourses". While "The Discourses" tells what is morrally correct, however "The Prince"'s goal,is practicality, never morals. The people are a resourse like any other, yet the most important. According to him you have three branches to please "The people, the nobles, and the soldiery", each with their own goals and objectives. A ruler must juggle their happiness. "Nobles should be pleased, but not to the extent that the people hate you." "Soldiers were of great importance then, but the people are greatist branch now."
According to Machiavelli, the people should only be valued as far as they benifit. A ruler should please them, as they keep him in power. And a ruler should never sacrifice a people for his morals. The whole was the most valuble to Machiavelli, the individual is of little importance.

Does Macheavelli's model still hold true? It certainly mirrors many of the great leaders I have studied, but not all of them.
Well, it all depends on which book "The Prince", or "The Discourses". While "The Discourses" tells what is morrally correct, however "The Prince"'s goal,is practicality, never morals. The people are a resourse like any other, yet the most important. According to him you have three branches to please "The people, the nobles, and the soldiery", each with their own goals and objectives. A ruler must juggle their happiness. "Nobles should be pleased, but not to the extent that the people hate you." "Soldiers were of great importance then, but the people are greatist branch now."
According to Machiavelli, the people should only be valued as far as they benifit. A ruler should please them, as they keep him in power. And a ruler should never sacrifice a people for his morals. The whole was the most valuble to Machiavelli, the individual is of little importance.

A leader must create a body, to which he is the inseparable head. As the head he must lead and care for the body, which is single entity, with many parts, and functions.

A leader must create a body, to which he is the inseparable head. As the head he must lead and care for the body, which is single entity, with many parts, and functions.
Yes, naturally. Ether you read my previously posts, and you are trying to please me, or we see eye-to-eye. You oughtta to read Plato's "Republic", if you haven't already.

A leader must create a body, to which he is the inseparable head. As the head he must lead and care for the body, which is single entity, with many parts, and functions.
If you must make some of the body suffer, it's like a doctor amputating to save his patient's life.

What about leaders such as hitler? Who never even maintained a majority of popular support, and yet was able to turn a war-torn country with worthless currency into a leading world power?

We've really only touched upon a few leadership traits.

Napoleon is my favorite too, I think.

What about leaders such as hitler? Who never even maintained a majority of popular support, and yet was able to turn a war-torn country with worthless currency into a leading world power?

We've really only touched upon a few leadership traits.

Napoleon is my favorite too, I think.
True, true. However, Hitler, although he slept with a copy of "The Prince" under his pillow, he didn't follow it to the end. His houlocaust ruined him by making him enemies. Not only on a moral level was it wrong (which "The Prince" doesn't deal wtih), but it was pollitically stupid.
As for other qualitities, Napoleon had what I think we'd call Charisma. On a personal level, he wasn't sociable, but with his troops, he had a magnetism which made them willing to die without thinking for him. He was like a Roman General. His troops loved him. He would present his own medals as awards. He said amazing things. "Any time you tell someone you were at the battle of Austerliz my soldiers, they will say 'there, goes a brave man'."
Of course he was geneuis in terms of the military, but he had a power to motivate his men. I term that power "Charisma". What would you call it?

What about leaders such as hitler? Who never even maintained a majority of popular support, and yet was able to turn a war-torn country with worthless currency into a leading world power?

We've really only touched upon a few leadership traits.

Napoleon is my favorite too, I think.

Hitler did have a majority support actually... That said he did use brainwashing.

Hitler did have a majority support actually... That said he did use brainwashing.


MAINTAINED!

Yes, naturally. Ether you read my previously posts, and you are trying to please me, or we see eye-to-eye. You oughtta to read Plato's "Republic", if you haven't already.
Naturally, I'm reading Timaeus & Critias right now.