The Power of Leaders

[3113]

This is and is not kinda connected to the Human Animal thread.

I came across a series of short documentaries, home done by some guy on his computer and put up on youtube. They were on the Hundred Years war. I knew only the big bits and pieces of this part of history, as most folk do--Henry V, Joan of Arc, ends with England falling into the War of the Roses...that sort of thing. So I thought, why not? and sat down and watched all of this guy's 17+ parts, each running about 3-7 minutes. Not bad. Not bad at all. He really got it all into a neat and informative nutshell from battle tactics to personalities and reasons why.

What struck me, however, was the fact that in this long-assed, off-and-on war between England and France over France, the most amazing battles were won usually with a combination of great tactics on the part of one side (and stupid tactics on the part of the other--aka, unbeknownst to me, the English had been using the long bow against the French for a while prior to Agincourt; the French kept making the same mistake and charging into those arrows), and leadership.

I'm not talking leadership in the sense of good move or just good moves. I mean leadership in the sense of a figurehead and flashpoint. Of a guy who had charisma. I mean, you go through this series and there are these powerful leaders making their men hold together and go into battle under the most appalling conditions and uneven odds. And when these men are leading the way, it usually helps to win the day, if only because the armies would have deserted or fallen apart otherwise...as the armies on the other side do under not-so-good leaders.

But what is really striking is Joan of Arc. I'm now convinced she can't really be appreciated without a real knowledge of the history and situation of France at the time. I mean, you get to her there at the end, and it's a real "What the fuck?" moment. The whole of France is in English hands--abet spread really thin and easily broken if anyone can get up the courage to make a real fight for it. But the French leaders have tried and tried and tried to win, and failed over and over again. Suddenly, a 17-year-old illiterate peasant girl talking of visions shows up and says, "I'm leading us to victory!" And she does! What the fuck?

But this is what got me thinking. Is that all that was needed all along? A figurehead for the French side? A flashpoint? A girl in armor shouting "God is on our side!" and suddenly everyone in France rallys to kick out the English? And does that mean that it's always easier to win if you kill the figurehead? Alexander the Great dies and it all dies? Almost always? What is it about the human animal that groups of people often don't seem to know what to do until the right leader appears? And then, like a pack of wolves or lemmings over a cliff, they'll follow that leader anywhere and do just about anything that leader tells them?

Certainly, leaders can lead in wrong directions with disastrous results, but my point is simply how interesting it is that humans often can't see, or worse, will ignore what's right in front of them until and unless the right leader comes along. And then, suddenly, they all see it and do it and succeed. The leader couldn't have done it without them, and they couldn't have done it without the leader. Why the need for such flashpoint and bellweathers? And why, for that matter, are we willing to be dragged in the wrong direction by leaders, contrary to all common sense, and only willing, in many cases, to go in the right direction if another better leader takes us there?

Thoughts?

 

[Belegon]

This is and is not kinda connected to the Human Animal thread.

I came across a series of short documentaries, home done by some guy on his computer and put up on youtube. They were on the Hundred Years war. I knew only the big bits and pieces of this part of history, as most folk do--Henry V, Joan of Arc, ends with England falling into the War of the Roses...that sort of thing. So I thought, why not? and sat down and watched all of this guy's 17+ parts, each running about 3-7 minutes. Not bad. Not bad at all. He really got it all into a neat and informative nutshell from battle tactics to personalities and reasons why.

What struck me, however, was the fact that in this long-assed, off-and-on war between England and France over France, the most amazing battles were won usually with a combination of great tactics on the part of one side (and stupid tactics on the part of the other--aka, unbeknownst to me, the English had been using the long bow against the French for a while prior to Agincourt; the French kept making the same mistake and charging into those arrows), and leadership.

I'm not talking leadership in the sense of good move or just good moves. I mean leadership in the sense of a figurehead and flashpoint. Of a guy who had charisma. I mean, you go through this series and there are these powerful leaders making their men hold together and go into battle under the most appalling conditions and uneven odds. And when these men are leading the way, it usually helps to win the day, if only because the armies would have deserted or fallen apart otherwise...as the armies on the other side do under not-so-good leaders.

But what is really striking is Joan of Arc. I'm now convinced she can't really be appreciated without a real knowledge of the history and situation of France at the time. I mean, you get to her there at the end, and it's a real "What the fuck?" moment. The whole of France is in English hands--abet spread really thin and easily broken if anyone can get up the courage to make a real fight for it. But the French leaders have tried and tried and tried to win, and failed over and over again. Suddenly, a 17-year-old illiterate peasant girl talking of visions shows up and says, "I'm leading us to victory!" And she does! What the fuck?

But this is what got me thinking. Is that all that was needed all along? A figurehead for the French side? A flashpoint? A girl in armor shouting "God is on our side!" and suddenly everyone in France rallys to kick out the English? And does that mean that it's always easier to win if you kill the figurehead? Alexander the Great dies and it all dies? Almost always? What is it about the human animal that groups of people often don't seem to know what to do until the right leader appears? And then, like a pack of wolves or lemmings over a cliff, they'll follow that leader anywhere and do just about anything that leader tells them?

Certainly, leaders can lead in wrong directions with disastrous results, but my point is simply how interesting it is that humans often can't see, or worse, will ignore what's right in front of them until and unless the right leader comes along. And then, suddenly, they all see it and do it and succeed. The leader couldn't have done it without them, and they couldn't have done it without the leader. Why the need for such flashpoint and bellweathers? And why, for that matter, are we willing to be dragged in the wrong direction by leaders, contrary to all common sense, and only willing, in many cases, to go in the right direction if another better leader takes us there?

Thoughts?

Admittedly, my first thought is to try and find that documentary...

I don't know what to say besides that I too have recognized this truth. On those rare occasions when we all forget our petty distractions and are brought together, we can do amazing things. On both sides of the good/evil coin.

 

[trysail]

"Leadership," "leadership styles" and "leadership types" are difficult abstractions. An obvious measure of that is the sheer volume of study and writing devoted to the topic.

Perceptions of the concepts and definitions differ widely. It has been observed (and I think, accurately) that different situations require different kinds of leaders.

Charisma and courage are, without question, part of the equation, as are the commonly admired character traits of intelligence, fortitude, determination and "virtue." Shared sacrifice and "leadership by example" are frequently effective forms. In my mind, there is an unresolved conflict between "leadership by acclamation" and "leadership by assertion." That's a personal prejudice; I distrust ambitious (wo)men while acknowledging there are problems with "leadership by acclamation." In its early days, the Confederacy attempted "leadership by popularity;" it didn't work.

Obviously, a leader can't lead if followers aren't willing to follow. How do you get folk to follow? There are tried and true ways to bend the will of most people; they will respond to "fear" and "greed." Machiavelli wrote a (worthwhile) book about it. Historical figures such as Oliver Cromwell, Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill, George Washington, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson, Crazy Horse, Alexander (the so-called "Great") all had different methods. Humanity can be horribly base and an appalling number of followers can always be relied upon to respond simply to the potential for booty. Success never hurts; as the expression goes: "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan."

Many of us exposed to Southern (U.S.) values will forever view Robert E. Lee as the embodiment of an admirable and effective leader (all the while acknowledging his errors).

 

[Weird Harold]

Certainly, leaders can lead in wrong directions with disastrous results, but my point is simply how interesting it is that humans often can't see, or worse, will ignore what's right in front of them until and unless the right leader comes along. And then, suddenly, they all see it and do it and succeed. The leader couldn't have done it without them, and they couldn't have done it without the leader. Why the need for such flashpoint and bellweathers? And why, for that matter, are we willing to be dragged in the wrong direction by leaders, contrary to all common sense, and only willing, in many cases, to go in the right direction if another better leader takes us there?

Thoughts?

It's bellwether -- which is a close relative of the Judas Goat (actually pretty much another name for a judas goat, since a wether, withor without the bell, was often chosen as the judas goat because the herd was used to following him anyway.)

However, on the main point of your observation, you'd have to research things like "Mob Psychology," "Herd Behavior," and "Pack Instincts" and the role of Alpha Males (and alpha females) in pack behavior.

Humans are in many ways a cross between herd animals and pack animals at the very basic level.

It sometimes seems as if there is some metaphysical or paranormal link that functions like the Emergency Broadcast System; when it kicks in every mind has the same thoughts, just like every TV and Radio has the same message when the EBS is activated for real.

Still, even the EBS has to have someone to write the message and that's the role of the "leader;" charisma and/or leadership seems to me to be more about having the "activation code" for the "psychic EBS" sytem built into humanity's brains.

 

[millennium_bard]

There is a definite difference between leadership and rank. I have known noncoms that I would willingly follow anywhere they led, and officers I wouldn't trust to lead a dog on a leash.
Most of the great leaders I have read about have something about them, call it charisma or superior force of will or what have you that makes orders they give seem logical and imperative.
Even when those same orders if coming from someone else would make you go, "Screw you! I ain't going up against those odds."

Way back in my wilder days I did a little unofficial work down around the equator under the command of just such a leader. We were all almost fanatically loyal to the Captain and we would have cheerfully followed him into hell.
We never lost a fight even when we were outnumbered due to his careful tactical skills and the training he had given us.

When he died from a snake bite the unit fell apart as no one would follow the Fool who was sent to take over. I led a few of the guys out of the zone and back home. I was never tempted to go back and try my luck another time.
The Fool managed to raise a new company and promptly got them and himself wiped out within a week.

 

[oggbashan]

Joan of Arc

When Joan of Arc appeared France was not a nation. Factions were fighting each other and the Dauphin was a figurehead being manipulated by one faction.

Some parts of France were actually fighting for the English. The English were adept at fomenting the internal strife and at keeping the various French factions at odds with each other.

Joan of Arc was used by one faction to rally more groups to the cause of the Dauphin. How much she was a catalyst and how much she was used by others is still debated. Once she had relieved Orleans and made the English retreat she was abandoned by the Dauphin's faction because she had served her purpose.

She was captured by one of the French groups allied to the English and sold. She was tried and executed because of evidence supplied by the FRENCH Catholic Church. It was an English political trial but her conviction would have been unlikely except for French collusion.

She was a charismatic leader and was supported by the common troops. She would never have had the chance to lead if she hadn't been a convenient tool for some of the politicians. Once she had done more than they expected she became an inconvenient nuisance.

Joan of Arc is revered by the French because she was from the common people leading the common soldiery. That made her an icon of the French Revolution. She wasn't made a saint until 1920.

Og

 

[trysail]

Og,
Your lucid précis of Jeanne d'Arc's story and role in history was both well executed and appreciated.

I believe that many underappreciate the fact that leaders are frequently, in many respects, captives of their circumstances and times.

"We are but actors on a stage."

 

[Pure]

your thoughts, of course, remind me of animals; how many of their societies have clear dominant strata {alpha and beta} or individuals ('pack leader'). in some, only the lead male reproduces, at least within the community

it's natural, and we consider it so, though there is some debate as to whether betas are made or born.

human problems re leadership seem to come from several causes; clearly the French upper strata (of the various factions) were not able to get together or in some cases, lead at all.

since recent US leaders are partly media creations, it's not surprising when a President-- not naming names here-- is NOT much of a leader. part of the Obama phenomenon is due to his possibly being a leader; he's compared to Kennedy.

what the media don't or cant get clear on is leadership; they can pick minutiae like past associations and corrupt contracts. suppose those had been criteria in other points of history!

also, the leader is expected to be a man [woman] of the people: hence we see photos of Obama bowling or, a while back, Bush clearing brush at his ranch.

now too, we expect the leader (or candidate) to be *morally* exemplary, thus who we end up as leader may have less to do with that person's leadership, and more to do with his freedom from moral taint (sex scandals). imagine if we were to use marital fidelity as a make/break hurdle for the leaders of history. imagine if use of 'controlled substances' had been a criterion!

has the US political system (and supporting institutions) become a training process that is a filter AGAINST leadership, or even quality of character?

 

[millennium_bard]

y

has the US political system (and supporting institutions) become a training process that is a filter AGAINST leadership, or even quality of character?

Yes it has

 

[3113]

It's bellwether

Heh. I will never, ever, stop making horrible spelling mistakes, and adding in an extra "H" to certain words has always been one of those mistakes. Thanks for the correction, though I'm sure I'm going to forget and do it again sometime

Still, even the EBS has to have someone to write the message and that's the role of the "leader;" charisma and/or leadership seems to me to be more about having the "activation code" for the "psychic EBS" sytem built into humanity's brains.

Interesting idea. I wonder if there's been similar research to this in people as there is in, say, research into radar in geese and such.

There is a definite difference between leadership and rank. I have known noncoms that I would willingly follow anywhere they led, and officers I wouldn't trust to lead a dog on a leash.

LOL!

Way back in my wilder days I did a little unofficial work down around the equator under the command of just such a leader. We were all almost fanatically loyal to the Captain and we would have cheerfully followed him into hell.
We never lost a fight even when we were outnumbered due to his careful tactical skills and the training he had given us.

When he died from a snake bite the unit fell apart as no one would follow the Fool who was sent to take over. I led a few of the guys out of the zone and back home. I was never tempted to go back and try my luck another time.

What a great story! I think what's interesting is the difference between Great Leaders who have a good instincts and/or training to put into place winning tactics and strategies vs. those who have the "magic" and the dumb luck and that keeps them on top.

Joan of Arc was used by one faction to rally more groups to the cause of the Dauphin. How much she was a catalyst and how much she was used by others is still debated....She would never have had the chance to lead if she hadn't been a convenient tool for some of the politicians.

Yes, of course. But I seriously doubt that faction said, "Hm, how can we get people to follow us? I know! Let's put a girl in armor up on a horse!" I mean, SHE came to the Dauphin's group and made them give her a chance, either because she had the magic or because they thought "Why not?" Either way, she did lead. Just because she was "allowed" to lead by this faction, and later exploited by them, doesn't detract from the fact that she captured the loyalty of the troops she led and was the spark that lit the fire that won back France.

Admittedly, my first thought is to try and find that documentary...

Hundred Year's War by Joshua Long

Two things: first, they're kinda addictive. And second...he can't pronounce the French words worth beans. Which is kind of endearing. I mean, I don't speak French and even I can hear the American accent mistakes. But he tries.

 

[oggbashan]

Yes, of course. But I seriously doubt that faction said, "Hm, how can we get people to follow us? I know! Let's put a girl in armor up on a horse!" I mean, SHE came to the Dauphin's group and made them give her a chance, either because she had the magic or because they thought "Why not?" Either way, she did lead. Just because she was "allowed" to lead by this faction, and later exploited by them, doesn't detract from the fact that she captured the loyalty of the troops she led and was the spark that lit the fire that won back France.

My account wasn't intended to diminish Joan of Arc's charisma but:

She wouldn't have been able to go to the Dauphin's group if she hadn't been sponsored by the local nobleman who saw her as a way of getting influence.

She had been hearing voices telling her to go for a long time before she could go. Without influential local support she could never have left her village.

Og

 

[trysail]

Yes, of course. But I seriously doubt that faction said, "Hm, how can we get people to follow us? I know! Let's put a girl in armor up on a horse!" I mean, SHE came to the Dauphin's group and made them give her a chance, either because she had the magic or because they thought "Why not?" Either way, she did lead. Just because she was "allowed" to lead by this faction, and later exploited by them, doesn't detract from the fact that she captured the loyalty of the troops she led and was the spark that lit the fire that won back France.

"Nothing succeeds like success" or, put another way, "Success builds on success."

I'll be the first to tell you that I don't understand why people behave the way they do. The vast majority are astoundingly irrational. Nassim Taleb's books (particularly, Fooled By Randomness ) and Peter L. Bernstein's Against The Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk provide insight into humanity's tendency to miscalculate and the minority who labor to set them aright.

I will reiterate my opinion that people greatly underappreciate the extent to which leaders are prisoners of their followers. Thus, I could quibble with the thread title to the point of suggesting that it might properly be amended to read: The Powerlessness of Leaders —akin to de Toqueville's "tyranny of the majority." Robert K. Massie's Dreadnought is a sobering tale of the utter powerlessness of Europe's leaders to derail a continent and populace hellbent on war.

Mao (Tse Tung) Zedong's response to Richard Nixon's 1972 toast ("To a man who has changed the course of history") was, "I have only managed to change a few things around Peking (Beijing)." Thirty-six years on, all of us are well aware of what little effect Mao had on the long run course of history.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's bellwether

Heh. I will never, ever, stop making horrible spelling mistakes, and adding in an extra "H" to certain words has always been one of those mistakes. Thanks for the correction, though I'm sure I'm going to forget and do it again sometime

It wasn't the "spelling" that I was correcting but the word choice -- I'm fascinated by the way agrarian idoms stick in language long after the base word has dropped out of common usage. There a distinct difference between atmospheric conditions (weather) and a male goat (a wether.)

Interesting idea. I wonder if there's been similar research to this in people as there is in, say, research into radar in geese and such.

I think the only research into a "group mind" in humans has been conducted by people with tinfoil hats to protect them from the group mind. That doesn't necessarily negate the literal possiblility, just discredits the idea as "unproveable."

There is however an entire field of study that used to be called mob psychlogy but is now called the more PC term "Group Dynamics." People do behave differently in large groups than they do as individuals and the dynamics of "leadership" is a large part of the study -- how does the mob select the leaders and why do they then follow almost mindlessly?

 

[3113]

It wasn't the "spelling" that I was correcting but the word choice -- I'm fascinated by the way agrarian idoms stick in language long after the base word has dropped out of common usage. There a distinct difference between atmospheric conditions (weather) and a male goat (a wether.)

I see I mistook my error. I went for the "a" rather than my usual "h." Usually I misspell it bellwhether. Sometimes I remember there's no "h" and take it out, but, as sometime happens when I do that, my fingers add the extra "a" there, because they're used to the word "weather" rather than "wether." I do know that bellwethers have to do with sheep and goats, but as others might have thought, from my error, that it was atmospheric, I'm glad you caught it and pointed it out.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Compare and Contrast: The leadership qualities of Jeanne d'Arc and George Washington, and the outcomes in each case. Be sure that your answer reflects the different historical circumstances that surrounded each leader and events.

George: A great leader in war and in peace because of one word: character. (He was actually a mediocre general at best in a purely military sense, yet it's hard to imagine the revolution succeeding without him in the postion he held - much easier to identify countless moments in which have collapsed without him.)

Joan: An inspirational war leader based on religious appeal and - I don't know enough about the history to say any more (maybe I should watch the youtube.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Curse you, 3113 - now I'm spending time watching those silly, addictive videos!

BTW, Keegan's "The Face of War" chapter on Agincourt is rather horrifying (horror is more or less the theme of the book), and provides a much more detailed and nuanced view of the battle - the arrow-storm was in itself not what brought about the victory.

 

[3113]

Joan: An inspirational war leader based on religious appeal and - I don't know enough about the history to say any more (maybe I should watch the youtube.)

Well, keep in mind that she was a peasant girl, and that she only had one ambition: lead the army to victory and crown the dauphin. Once she did that, she considered her role finished. It was only because others (1) insisted she stick around, and (2) didn't give a shit about what happened to her, that she ended up being captured and burned.

George, modest as he was, did have ambitions beyond just winning the war, and he wasn't a peasant girl who could be used and tossed aside. He was a rich landowner with a lot of influence. So his end was more auspicious than poor Joan's.

Curse you, 3113 - now I'm spending time watching those silly, addictive videos!

LOL! It's because none of them run more than 7 minutes. They're like potato chips. You just keep munching on them and next thing you know, you're an expert on the hundred years war.

I wonder if we can convince this guy to do another series of these videos on other wars? Say, WWI maybe?

the arrow-storm was in itself not what brought about the victory.

True, as the little YouTube videos show if you've gotten there. Men drowned in the mud, horses got impaled on spikes, soldiers both on foot and horseback got crushed. Like a nasty freeway pile up. Still one of the most remarkable victory's in history. I'm an atheist and I'd probably have given credit to god after being that lucky--and by that I mean, lucky that my enemy made so many mistakes that my side won so unequivocally and with remarkably few causalities.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I wonder if we can convince this guy to do another series of these videos on other wars? Say, WWI maybe?

I know just how to convince him: Display a list of all the French place-names he gets to butcher.

Ypres? ("Wipers" to the Tommies.)
The Aisne?
Chateau Thierry?

 

[cloudy]

Joan of Arc is an interesting character, for sure.

It's been postulated that she was the illegitimate child of the Duchess of Angouleme (sp?), backed and trained by the Knights Templar and that her "voices" were actually the product of mental illness.

I love history.

 

[3113]

It's been postulated that she was the illegitimate child of the Duchess of Angouleme (sp?), backed and trained by the Knights Templar and that her "voices" were actually the product of mental illness.

As if she isn't extraordinary enough as just a schizophrenic, 17-year old peasant girl who managed to get the Dauphin crowned and changed the balance of power in France!

 

[cloudy]

As if she isn't extraordinary enough as just a schizophrenic, 17-year old peasant girl who managed to get the Dauphin crowned and changed the balance of power in France!

She did wear the cross of the Templars, that's where that part of it comes from.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Kind of irrelevent because their perception was very different, but why would God give a crap anyway whether the feudalistic exploiters reigning over the mass of Gaulish humanity owed putative loyalty to the exploiter-in-chief in Paris or the one in London?

 

[cloudy]

Kind of irrelevent because their perception was very different, but why would God give a crap anyway whether the feudalistic exploiters reigning over the mass of Gaulish humanity owed putative loyalty to the exploiter-in-chief in Paris or the one in London?

Well, of course it seems odd to us. At the time, however, there was nothing odd about it.

 

[3113]

Kind of irrelevent because their perception was very different, but why would God give a crap anyway whether the feudalistic exploiters reigning over the mass of Gaulish humanity owed putative loyalty to the exploiter-in-chief in Paris or the one in London?

Presumably because the one in Paris was chosen by god to exploit the Gaulish masses. The one in London was chosen to exploit only those in England.

Of course, you might well ask, if that were true, then why did god let the exploiters from London claim as much of Gaul as they did and make a fool out of the exploiter in Paris before finally turning the tables and kicking the wrong exploiters out in favor of the right exploiter?

For that we have one of two answers, pick the one you like best:
(1) "god was testing both sides to see if they knew right from wrong; those who recognized his divine will when they saw it (whether it favored Henry V or Joan of Arc) and fought or surrendered to the right side, got to go to heaven; the rest, even if they won the Earthly battles, went to hell."
(2) "No one can know god's will. It's a mystery to humankind. You just have to have faith that there's a good reason for it all."

Does that clear things up?

 

[oggbashan]

Kind of irrelevent because their perception was very different, but why would God give a crap anyway whether the feudalistic exploiters reigning over the mass of Gaulish humanity owed putative loyalty to the exploiter-in-chief in Paris or the one in London?

Not only God but most of the ordinary people didn't care who ruled them. The idea of national identity didn't happen until the French revolution. Until then you followed your feudal or family boss because he told you to.

The King of England had an arguable claim to be King of France as well. Even at the end of the 18th Century our coinage still claimed that our King was King of Britain, France and Ireland.

During the First World War some of the German troops had belt buckles claiming "Gott Mit Uns" - or was it a plea?

Og