Great Military Figures in History: Alexander, Caesar & Napoleon - Term Paper Example

 Great Military Figures in History: Alexander, Caesar & Napoleon 1.0 Introduction Leadership involves moving people from one point to another point (Jordaan, 2000 p2). This means that leadership involves the creation of a vision and supporting individuals to accept that vision and use it as a yardstick to attain certain defined ends. Leadership is necessary for the attainment of organizational or group goals. This therefore implies that different people at different times have relied on good leadership to attain their common goals. This is common in the governance of communities, states and nations. The classical writers about management defined the elements of scientific management which was meant to provide a framework for the attainment of the best results for businesses based on the use of the best techniques (Reza, 2011 p72). In this attempt to put together the best methods for the management of organizations, leadership seem to be one of the most indispensable concepts. It is often said that a good leader leading a weak group is better than a strong group being led by a weak leader. This therefore suggests that an organization is as good as its leader. In effect, leadership is an important element of organizational behavior and management science. Leadership has been essential since inception and it has developed ever since. Based on that, a lot of common traits and trends run through leadership in ancient communities and in the present era. Thus, parallels can be drawn when ancient leaders are compared to leaders who run organizations from board rooms and headquarters of businesses. This paper will examine the leadership traits of three great military leaders over the past 2,500 years and their leadership styles and traits. To this end, the leadership styles of Alexander the Great of Macedonia in Greece, Julius Caesar of the Roman Empire and Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France will be examined. In this examination, the leadership traits of the leaders will be assessed based on the principles of management. The leadership styles of these leaders will be juxtaposed with current thinking of management and leading modern organizations in the 21st Century. The common traits and the modifications that have been made to them will be outlined and highlighted in the conclusion of the essay. 2.0 Background Leadership in Modern Management There are facades within which leadership can be construed. Nozick identifies that a leader is an individual with traits that enables him to do three things to enable people to move from one point to another: 1. Formulate a vision. 2. Guide people to work to attain the vision. 3. Motivate people and set new targets where necessary (2010 p27). This therefore means that leadership has to do with the ability of an individual to set up a vision that will be supported by the entire group. The leader has to have the ability to support people and nurture them to use their abilities and personalities to attain the vision both individually and collectively. Hence, a leader needs the ability to motivate people to attain a given vision. Also, a leader needs the ability to plan and replan in order to spearhead the group to attain its vision and goals. “Motivation is what arouses and sustains a person's interest to do one thing other than another at a given point in time” (Walker, 2011 p853). This therefore means that motivation refers to what is topmost in a person's mind at a given point in time. A good leader is able to get followers to be interested in attaining the group's vision ahead of other ends. A good leader gets followers to put aside other goals, particularly personal interests to attain the group's goals. Modern management writers place leadership in two fundamental classes: transformational leadership and transactional leadership (Stevenson, 2004 p110). Transactional leaders are leaders who fit into McGregor's Theory X classification. Theory X leaders are autocratic and are only concerned with work results. They have little concern for the people they work with. They only pay the people for their labor and have no connection what the people think or want for them selves. On the other hand, transformational leaders are theory Y leaders who are transformational and democratic in outlook. “Transformational leadership is a process whereby leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation” (Bass 1997 p51). Bass goes on to identify that there are four elements of transformational leadership: 1. Individual consideration. 2. Intellectual stimulation 3. Inspirational motivation and 4. Idealized influence There are various sources of authority that puts a person in a leadership position. Weber identifies three different sources of authority (Schneider, 2010 p392). First of all, there is the Patriarchal Authority which is more of an inherited position which comes with a person's birth. This is linked with ancient views that people are appointed to leadership positions by G-d and as such, their offsprings also come to the world with the same divine grace. The second type of authority comes with Charisma. People rise to top positions based on some exceptional traits and abilities which put them in the forefront of organizations. The third source of Authority, which Weber identified as the most appropriate is the Rational/Legal authority. By this, he means that a person earns his position in the leadership role through a legally accepted progression system which is recognized by all and sundry and justified by the relevant laws. Such people get their authority through what most people call expert power. Culture refers to the way things are done within a given social group or organization (Jordaan, 2000 p18). It is marked by the dominant philosophies, beliefs and practices within the group. A successful leader comes up with a vision that is accepted by the people in the group. This enables the individuals to find opportunities and work according to the dominant culture to attain group ends with optimal systems and structures. 3.0 Case Analysis of Great Historical Military Leaders Based on the core components of management identified in modern management above, it can be possible to draw inferences and juxtapositions with the lifestyle, leadership traits and systems used by ancient military leaders. In this vein, the portion of the paper coming up will examine the lives of the three leaders under review: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte in the light of these modern elements of leadership. This will provide the basis for juxtapositions and comparison of these leaders to 21st Century leaders in businesses and other entities. 4.0 Alexander the Great Alexander the Great was born in 356 BCE and lived until 323 BCE (Heckel and Tirtle, 2009 p10). In his 33 years he achieved more than what most militant leaders can achieve in twice that age. Alexander was installed King of Macedon which was a city state when he was 20 years old (Heckel and Tirtle, 2009 p10). He was named Alexander III. Based on tradition at that time, Alexander inherited his father's position as a General in the overall Greek structure which included several city states which made the Greek Empire at that time (Dillon 2004 p76). Once Alexander got into power, he developed a major military plan which was to conquer lands from Europe to the ends of the earth (Heckel and Tirtle, 2009 p1). At that time, it was believed that the world ended just beyond India. So the idea Alexander had was to conquer to the ends of the world. Once he ascended the Throne, he began to plan and prepare the Greek military for the task ahead. In the era of Alexander, the Persian Empire was the most dominant global power. The Persians controlled most of the Middle East, North Africa and fringes of Southern Europe. Alexander's first mission was to get his military to invade Asia Minor, which was lands in present-day Southeastern Europe. Asia Minor was then under Persian control and Persian rule. After the successful capture of Asia Minor, Alexander waited for another season and launched a daring campaign to capture the rest of the Persian power and conquer lands to the ends of the earth [beyond India] (Morkot, 1996 p22). In 334 BCE, Alexander successfully conquered Persian interests in the Middle East and penetrated deep into Persia and Babylon (Dillon, 2004 13). He defeated Darius III and moved into the rest of the Middle East. Alexander conquered all the possessions of the Persian Empire and maintained the old Persian systems and structures (Roisman and Worthington, 2010 p91). However, he encouraged Greek colonization of the newly conquered lands. This led to the encouragement of Hellenic culture in different parts of the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Southern Europe. In the years that followed, Alexander launched a bold initiative to capture India and the lands beyond India. He had in his possession 48,100 soldiers, 6,100 cavalry, 120 ships with crews of over 38,000 people (Roisman and Worthington, 2010 p192). They defeated the mighty Indian elephant cavalries. In that period, Alexander entered Central Asia. Alexander earned the title of Alexander the Great. After conquering India, he sought to move the troops further but his Generals advised against the idea and he followed their advise and returned to his Empire (Roisman and Worthington, 2010 p192). 4.1 Sources of Authority Alexander the Great had the source of his authority in the patriarchal model. This is because he inherited his father directly. This was the status quo. However, he was able to rise and hold his position as a general because he showed a high degree of competency. The justification of his capabilities indicate that Alexander was a rational/legally appropriate leader. Also, in order to exert so much influence over such a large and unprecedented army meant that Alexander was respected, loved and charismatic. This means he had all the elements of the different kinds of leadership. 4.2 Leadership Profile Alexander had a vision: to conquer lands to the end of the earth. This was a vision that his followers embraced and were ready to work to attain. However, he started attaining his vision in a gradualist fashion. First, he led the army to defeat the small Persian colony in Asia minor. As the successes came in, he rebuilt his army and they moved on to higher challenges. This is what most leaders do in the modern era. In strategic planning, leaders are supposed to justify their decisions based on successes their strategies attain. Once their strategies bring in successful results, those successful results are encouraged whilst failures are discouraged. Also, Alexander was seen to be a great planner. He is reputed to have different means of attacking enemy armies through the use of the terrain, strong cavalry tactics and different cuts. He was also bold in his strategy and sought the loyalty of his troops (Roisman and Worthington, 2010 p193). 4.3 Transactional V Transformational Alexander the Great was perceived by most writers to be a transformational leader. He gave his Generals the best colonial roles in the new and expanding Greek Empire that they jointly created. Due to this, the Generals and other military leaders got privileged positions in the colonies. They collected taxes which they used to their benefit. This way, the followers' needs were linked to Alexander's vision for the Greek nation. Due to the fact that Alexander listened to his Generals and decided to return and give up the conquest beyond India indicates that he was democratic and not autocratic. This is because if Alevander had conquered beyond India, he would have made history and his name would have been mentioned. However, he was ready to sacrifice his personal ego for the interest of the wider group. This shows that Alex was more democratic than autocratic. He had concern for his followers and linked individual needs of his group with his own personal needs. 4.4 Motivation of Followers Alexander motivated his followers by being personally involved in battle (Morkot, 1996 p110). Instead of staying at home and giving instructions for his soldiers to fight and die, he was ready to join his army to war. Hence, he was an inspiration to the entire team. He lived what he said but did not only pay lip service to the state. Also, Alexander encouraged his people to master different war techniques in order to enable them to win victory over unfamiliar enemies like the Indian elephant cavalries. He also encouraged the unification of culture to get his followers to feel proud of their Greek origins and distinguish themselves everywhere they went. This kept them motivated and encouraged to spread their 'civilized' culture around the world. 4.5 Philosophy and Culture Alexander was always hesitant to destroy an existing culture or system. Instead, he built on the status quo in an incremental manner. Alexander favored a blend of Hellenistic culture with other cultures and through that, there were cultural osmosis which led to the evolution of strong cultures which supported civilization. Alexander was therefore ready to plant his vision in an existing cultural system. Through this, most of his visions proved popular with his followers. 5.0 Julius Caesar Julius Caesar was one of three rulers of Ancient Rome. He however grew in prominence by leading the Roman Army to expand over Europe and the rest of the Known World and became the sole leader of the new Roman Empire (Holford-Stevens, 2003 p112). He lived between 100 BCE and 44 BCE. Caesar started life as a modest nobel who studied a lot about military wisdom. With time, he contested for an election the city of Rome and became one of the Triumvirate who ruled the city. Caesar ruled alongside Crassus and Pompey. On taking office, Caesar and his two colleagues came up with liberal laws which led to the redistribution of land from the rich to the poor (Mackay, 2004 p11). This was unpopular to the aristocratic class that dominated the senate which voted Caesar and the Triumvirate into power. Caesar's vision was based on Alexander's idea of conquering the world. He sought to expand the Roman kingdom throughout Europe and to the rest of the world. There was a rebellion to Roman rule in Gaul [present-day France]. Caesar was ordered to lead the Roman Army to suppress the revolt. Caesar and his men suppressed the rebellion of the Gauls. Although the Gauls won numerous battles against the Caesar's Roman Army, Caesar caused his Army to use the specialized skills in siege works to force the Guals to surrender. Within that time, Crassus, who was one of the Triumvirate died. So Pompey took control of affairs in Rome. Pompey fearing that Caesar would be too popular ordered Caesar to return to Rome(Campell, 1994 p22). However, Caesar interpreted this action to be an attempt to get him to return to Rome and face treason charges because Pompey wanted to get full grips over power (Mackay, 2004 p12). Meanwhile, Caesar and his Army in the north of Europe conquered several Germanic tribes and crossed over to the British Isles where they conquered the Britons. Caesar eventually returned to Rome and had full command and loyalty of the Roman troops. With this command and authority, and fearing that Pompey might get him killed, Caesar launched a civil war which overthrew the old order and established him as the sole leader of the Roman Empire. The message that Caesar gave to the Roman people was that the people must work towards the formation of a prosperous Empire that would be based on the conquest and 'civilization' of other states. This led to a trend of conquering the old Greek kingdom that survived from the time of Alexander the Great which had been captured from the Persians. So under Caesar, the Roman Empire expanded from the North Atlantic in Britain over the entire Europe to North Africa and the Middle East, towards the fringes of the Indian subcontinent. 5.1 Sources of Authority It can be said that Julius Caesar's source of authority is Rational/Legal. Although he was of a noble origin, he worked hard and acquired his power through the legally recognized means. He first won an election and then proceeded to take up his task as a professional military leader. However, with his charismatic features and strong vision, the people gradually gathered under him and he was able to influence them strongly. 5.2 Leadership profile: Caesar's vision was based on the availability of resources and the example of Alexander the Great. In other words, Caesar saw an opportunity to expand Rome over the lands that Alexander had captured. He also saw the resources available and then began to motivate and encourage his soldiers to meet that end. Caesar supported planning and gave his soldiers encouragement necessary for the conquest of the Gauls, Germanic tribes and other tribes. Through this, they were able to take their resources and force them to enlist in the Roman army and use them for further campaigns. 5.3 Transactional V Transformational Caesar had elements of transactional and transformational leadership. Caesar was able to get his inner circle to trust and love him. However, in most of his militant situations and as the sole ruler of Rome, he lived as a dictator. All in all though, Caesar had the ability to promise very good deal to his colleagues and get them to support his ideas. For instance, Roman colonies were given very favorable offers and this encouraged them to support the Empire. These colonies were transformed and modernized whilst they continued to support the expansion of the Roman Empire. 5.4 Motivation of Followers Caesar is an epitome of motivation. He has been cited in numerous sources for being exceptionally strong in getting his army to carry out important tasks. Caesar is reputed for burning all the ships used by the Roman Army to cross the English Channel. This meant that the Roman Army had no exit from the British Isles unless they had defeated the Britons. This showed that he was determined and had strong means of instilling that determination into his followers! 5.5 Philosophy and Culture Caesar was a supporter of Change and Innovation. He was ready to change the status quo and implement new ideas as and when necessary. This is marked by the fact that he supported the Triumvirate to redistribute wealth. He also fought to overthrow Pompey and the Sentate system. Caesar took the colonization of non-Roman lands to a different level. Also, he was able to encourage the people to seek to expand to other areas that was thought to be impossible. This makes Julius Caesar a visionary. 6.0 Napoleon Bonaparte Napoleon Bonaparte was born in 1769 and died in 1821. He was the Emperor of France from 1804 to 1815. Napoleon is known for his role in stabilizing France and putting things in order in the country after the French Revolution of 1789 to the end of the Century. The French Revolution plunged France into chaos. The Absolute Monarch had led to a lot of issues in France like demands of the Middle Class for a better life, the calls for the reduction of privileges to the nobles and clergy and the abolishing of the feudal system (Viault, 1991 p178 – 179). The disturbances and chaos of the period of the Revolution led to a spate of bloodshed and civil war in France. The victims of this destructive era included King Louis XVI who was guillotined in January 1793 (Viault, 1991 p181). This led to a period of the Reign of Terror whereby the different factions of the revolution went to war over different issues. There was no clear deadlock to the crises. Napoleon, who was born in Ajaccio in Corsica which is in present-day Italy was trained to be an artillery officer in France. In 1796, at age 27, he led a French expedition that invaded the Italian Peninsular (Alter, 2006 p61). He led the French Army to defeat the Austrian Army and this made him a popular military leader. In 1798, Napoleon led a French force to invade Egypt. However, the British destroyed the French fleet. Napoleon returned to France and at that time, Britain, Russia, Austria, Portugal, Naples and the Ottoman Empire had joined forces to defeat France which had declared an open war with the rest of Europe's monarchies. France suffered significant defeats and this caused financial crises in the country. In 1799, Napoleon seized power and requested for the constitution to be redrafted. Under the new constitution, Napolean was given the mandate to rule France for 10 years as a Consul. In a plebiscite in 1802, Napoleon was declared a Consul for Life. This is because the message was that France needed a leader who would lead the country in its European Wars. Napoleon defeated Austria and Italy and held on to some armistices with the major powers. He moved on to establish a Civil Code which stabilized France. In 1805, he was ready to go to war. Within that time, he captured most of Europe and installed puppet stations. Napoleon however made a series of miscalculated attempts by invading Russia in the winter of 1812. This led to his decline which began in ended in the battle of Waterloo in 1815 where he was captured and shipped to the isolated British outpost of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean. He died in custody. 6.1 Sources of Authority Napoleon's authority did not come about as a result of his noble birth. Rather, he got his leadership status from his expert power as a military leader. His successes in the battlefield made him exception and admired by the armies he commanded. Napoleon's rise into power was linked to France's need for stability and international military victory. This made Napoleon a charismatic leader in his time. The same can be said of other leaders who came up a century after Napoleon like Adolf Hitler and Sir Winston Churchill. They all filled a gap that was needed for their nations in their generations. So the situational factor was important for this class of leaders. However, with time, the charisma of Napoleon made him a rational/legal leader since the constitution he drew up in power was accepted by the people in the plebiscite. 6.2 Leadership profile Napoleon's vision was to build a strong and prosperous nation that would defeat the enemies of the Revolution in Europe and also restructure the nation. Everyone in France saw that need after the Revolution. However, there was no strong person who could take that up unopposed. Napoleon's brilliance in war and his ability as a statesman made him an unquestionable figurehead for France. With this status, Napoleon got the entire French people motivated to build a new republic around such a great person. This led to their unconditional support for Napoleon. 6.3 Transactional V Transformational: Napoleon draw a fine balance between transformational leadership and transactional leadership. He was democratic where he had to be and autocratic where he had to be firm. He banned the freedom of expression because it led to anarchy. However, he led plebiscites and other activities that made him appear as a democratic leader. He had the trust of his generals and his subjects. And all the French people saw a lot of opportunities in following Napoleon to get them to their ideal destination as a powerful Empire in Europe. 6.4 Motivation of Followers The followers of Napoleon were motivated by the promise of making France a nation that was rid of the corruption of the ancien regime. He also sought to promote equality, liberty and fairness. This was what the masses wanted for generations. Napoleon's actions made them motivated to support him to build a strong nation. 6.5 Philosophy and Culture Napoleon's philosophy was based on the need to preserve the ideals of the Revolution. He therefore came up with the Civil Code which became important in separating powers and promoting equality and fairness. Also, Napoleon sought to export the revolution to challenge nations who had monarchies that he perceived to be corrupt and unsuitable for the masses. This led him to pursue important strategies and activities aimed at destabilizing the enemies of France on the European continent. 7.0 Current Thinking Several leaders in the world today consciously or unconsciously play different roles that are similar to these leaders. A person like Steve Jobs used to pursue reforms and modify and improve systems so as to provide innovation. This is similar to the strategy and approach used by Julius Caesar who was not afraid to ask for change and question the status quo. Apple continues to be a leader in innovation and it improves on a regular basis. On the other hand, Microsoft seeks to build on their existing strengths and positions to attain the best of results. This is similar to Alexander the Great's approach of trying to get the best of the status quo without disturbing what goes on. Microsoft attempts to understand what the consumers want and give them exactly what they want. This is marked by the progressive improvement of their products and offerings. Many organizations that went into crises had to use the approach and structures of Napoleon Bonaparte to survive in turbulent times. An example is Macorni which diversified into into Internet services at the dot.com bubble. Eventually, the company need to appoint a new and competent board to handle things. This led to the formation of of new structures and systems which enabled the company to undertake strategic analysis and reposition the organization. On the other hand, organizations that are not close to any crises go the Alexander the Great way. They maintain the status quo without trying to change anything. Organizations like Virgin and Vodafone continue to expand into new cultures and adopt the culture of the host nations like Alexander used to do. Other companies find it better to impose a global strategy on the locals. For instance, MacDonalds maintains the US standard in any developing country the operate. This is similar to the Roman model under Caesar where different people were assimilated into Roman culture once they became colonies. 8.0 Conclusion. Different leadership systems have evolved over the years in response to dominant conditions and systems. Alexander the Great used a conservative approach to integrate his culture and systems into other nations. Caesar was an innovation oriented leader. He changed things when the need arose. This is why innovation is necessary. On the other hand, Napoleon signifies leadership in times of crises. This is ideal to turn around situations where there are a lot of concerns. The Napoleonic leadership requires an ideal leader who can stabilize the storm. References Alter, P. (2006) Unity and Diversity in European Culture c1800: A Life New York: Penguin Books Astarita, T. (2005) Between Salt Water & Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy New York: WW Norton Co. Bass, B. M. (1997) From Transactional to Transformational Leadership New York: FT Prentice Hall. Campbell, J. B. (1994) The Roman Army 31 BC – AD 337 London: Routledge Publishing. Chandler, D. (2002) Napoleon Leo Cooper. Dillon, J. M. (2004) Morality and Custom in Ancient Greece Indianapolis: Indiana University Press Heckel, W. and Tritle, L. (2009) Alexander the Great: A New History London: Wiley Blackwell Holford-Stevens, C. (2003) Oxford Companion to the Year Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jordaan, E. F. (2000) Leadership and Organizational Development Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. MacKay, C. S. (2004) Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGregor, D. (1960) Human Side of Management New York: McGraw Hill Morkot, R. (1996) The Penguin Historical Atlas of Greece New York: Penguin Nozick, R. (2010) Philosophical Explanations London: Kogan Page Reza, A. S. (2011) The Evolution of the Science of Management Berlin: GRIN Verlag. Roisman, J and Worthington, I. (2010) A Companion to Ancient Macedonia Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Schneider, J. (2010) “Analysis of Max Weber's view of Authority” Journal of Leadership Vol 2 Issue 3 pp387 - 399 Stevenson, C. (2004) General Principles of Management Boston, MA: Eagle Press. Viault, B. S. (1991) Modern European History San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Walker, J. C. (2011) “Motivation and Modern Business: A Study of Top Managers in the Service Sector” Intercultural Management Journal Vol 83 (3) pp841 – 878 Supplemental materials Boone, L. E. and Kurtz, D. (2011) Contemporary Business 2010 Update Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Martino, L. P. (2009) Leadership and Strategy: Lessons from Alexander the Great Omaha: Book Surge Publishing. Read More