: Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest is one that goes against all stereotypes concerning that of the rise to becoming an officer, but has been called “one of the greatest soldiers the Civil War produced,” by General Ulysses S. Grant of the Union Army. Forrest’s lack of education and upbringing in rural Tennessee molded him very differently from that of the other Confederate Officers considering that the majority were West Point graduates and the other few that were not had military backgrounds and were raised and breed into the life of an officer. From an enlisted confederate soldier working his way to the rank of lieutenant general he became one of the greatest and most feared generals of the war due to his high energy, intimidation …show more content…
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Lt. General Forrest was known by every man in the western theater during the civil war to have a fighting unit that was as tight knit as they were deadly. A style focused on the relationships of others and cohesion concerns Transformational Leadership, which can most definitely be seen in Forrest’s leadership on and of the battlefield with his subordinates. He knew that success or failure came from morale, willingness to die and a strong bond between all his men that he made a cornerstone feature of his leadership (Sanders, 1994). One soldier from the 7th Tennessee Calvary once said, “his immediate presence seemed to inspire everyone with his terrible energy, more like that of a piece of powerful steam machinery than a human being”(Sanders, 1994). In addition, this presence allowed for all his men to come together to form a large tactical advantage that proved successful in the earlier mentioned Battle at Brice’s Crossroads. His personal courage and confidence within each of his men was always necessary and viewed highly among the unit. He could be seen riding down the front lines of his men personally asking each one to hold their positions and spots on the line generating a mentally strong barrier that would prove to be more effective than a physically strong barrier of men. Forrest’s concern and need for his men made him to show great leadership when it came to the personal level in which he led his men and the degree of trust and …show more content…
COMBINED STYLES EFFECITIVENESS: Compared to the other generals of the war, Lt. General Forrest was one to stand out and lead from a different perspective due to his background and personal attitudes about tactics and military movements. It was said that Forrest was “aggressive, consequently an offensive fighter, and always believed the moral effect was within the attacking party” (Morton, 1962). In addition a famous quote known to be said by Forrest was to “Get there first with the most” (Morton, 1962). Both bring together the way that Lt. General Forrest combines both leadership styles to become one of the most effective and deadly products of the Civil War. His concern and instilled motivation in his troops showed high levels of transformational leadership and he tactically used this to his advantage. With that he could aggressively assault and attack any enemy, task, or objective that he came in contact with because of his tight cohesion he had built within his units to create one of the most powerful and confident forces in the war. Forrest always was one to get there first to quickly examine the situation, but as for bringing the most he didn’t always have the most men he needed to complete the task but he always had the most motivation and energy to dominate the conflict at
His commanders did not obey his orders not to engage the enemy until the Confederate Army was battle ready. The commanders learned the location of suspected militia forces south of Gettysburg. The subordinate commanders decided to engage the enemy and lost the encounter. Had General Lee’s commanders understood his tactical vision regarding not engaging the enemy they might have obeyed his order. ADRP 6-0 states effective commanders build cohesive teams in an environment of mutual trust1. General Lee did not foster mutual trust and cohesion, resulting in a departure from his standing
In the dystopian novel of The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil, the theme is Loss of love. Loss of love is both demonstrated inside the novel and as well it is presented in the real world life where real humans live in. Who knew that in a fiction novel it can seem so real as these situations that are happening in the novel were not made up and were real things happening to the Characters. Just like these situations happening in the novel they are actually happening in the real world today. Loss of love occurs in the novel of The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil through three influential characters; Inner Horinters, Phil, and Carol. The fictional representation of loss is similar to real life situations such as Undocumented Immigrants
A Southern refugee once reflected, and referred to the Army of the Potomac as the “greatest army in the planet.” Although this is a clear exaggeration, from a Southern perspective following the Battle of Antietam, this was not too far off. Relative to the Army of Northern Virginia, the Federal army was vastly larger, in better spirits, and strategically in better positions. To direct this army of great potential, President Lincoln appointed the reluctant Major General Ambrose Everett Burnside. Almost immediately after receiving command, Burnside adopted a plan; the objective was Richmond. He was convinced that a victory at Richmond would cripple the Confederate’s ability to carry on; whether this would have been true is debatable. What is not arguable however, is Burnside’s neglect of a small city by the name of Fredericksburg, which lied directly in his path. He inherited every advantage a military leader of the time could hope for; however, every one of these advantages was dissolved with his disregard of mission command. The Army of the Potomac’s loss at the Battle of Fredericksburg was a direct result of General Burnside’s failure at conducting the commander’s activities of understanding, describing, leading, and assessing.
The analysis presented in this paper has been done with an aim to answer one fundamental question: "Why did Brigadier Savage succeed in transforming the 918th while Colonel Davenport fails?". The differences in leadership style between the two men have been presented within the frame work of three main parameters: vision, organizational changes and human resource management.
General George B. McClellan was born to a prestigious upper class family in Pennsylvania. He attended the Military Academy at West Point and graduated second in his class in 1846. He served during the war with Mexico and earned three brevets for gallantry and sound professional service. He resigned his commission but returned early during the Civil War and immediately given a high rank. He led a successful campaign in West Virginia. These events fueled General McClellan’s egotistical and elitist attitudes.
Military Leadership is always an important factor in wars. Good commanders will accomplish the goals of their side while inferior generals will only hinder performance and fail their leader. However, not all great generals are victorious. Victories depend heavily on the availability of resources. Leadership does not relate to the supplies one has to draw from, but instead the personal traits of the man himself. General Robert E. Lee is a prime example of an excellent general whose brilliance was impeded by the Confederate’s lack of resources. General Ulysses S. Grant’s genius is rebuffed when compared to that of Lee’s.
... the best he could and was always fighting for his country. He was loyal and brave in war and he knew how to lead soldiers into battle. Another principle reflecting Anderson’s life was “Seek the consent of your followers for you to lead them.” Anderson had led many soldiers into battles and he had the strength and leadership to do so. He accepted input from his soldiers and used it to fulfill the mission. “A good leader avoids issuing orders, preferring to request, imply, or make suggestions.” Anderson had the skills to deal with issues within the war and help his brothers in war with his great leadership.
Robert E. Lee will always be remembered as one of the best generals the south had in the civil war. He won key battles and he had the best war strategies in the war. He was the overpowered weapon for the south in the war. But most people only remember him from the civil war, unless you are into wars and American history.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the civil war. He served as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan postwar. Many had different views and opinion about him later at the turn of the century. After Forrest died, he was remembered in different ways.
Through his perseverance, Robert E. Lee became one of the most successful leaders in the Civil War. From graduating second in his class at West Point Academy to surrendering at the Appomattox Court House, Lee worked extremely hard to lead his team to victory. In the beginning of his military career, he was second lieutenant for the Army Corps and failed multiple time due to lack of confidence. Jefferson Davis appointed him to be the commander of the army in Northern Virginia in June of 1861. He soon was promoted to general of the whole confederate army after proving himself worthy as a leader.4 A confident,
... understood and emulated the tenets of mission command throughout the Battle of Bunker Hill, he was able to understand his orders and ensure that the orders he disseminated were concise and easily understood. He visualized where his weaknesses were on the hill and described to his engineers how to overcome their lack of soldiers and build a defensive position that could repel British forces. Throughout the entire battle COL Prescott would run the ramparts making assessments and adjustments to his lines and shouting orders to his soldiers. Facing an enemy he knew he could not defeat in a full fight COL Prescott accepted a high level of risk and moved to destroy as many British soldiers as he could before abandoning his post. While considered a loss by American forces, COL Prescott’s use of mission command attributes to later victories in the American Revolution.
Lee was one of the most successful civil war generals due to his impressive battle strategies. General E. Lee graduated from West Point a military college 2nd in his class. This gave him an advantage because he could outsmart the Northern generals. Robert E. ("Robert Edward Lee." Encyclopedia of World Biography,)Lee was a aggressive and daring general. Being aggressive has won him a alot of battles because his army was tougher and pushed back the North. Lee also knew when to attack and not. Using this skill he saved a lot of his troops. It also saved supplies so he didn't run out or ware down his men. Using these skills made Robert E. Lee an impressive general in the Civil War.("Robert E. Lee." Civil War
The Civil War had great leaders. Two of these leaders were Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. They both led their soldiers to great victories throughout this time. Grant led the Union during this time and Lee led the confederacy. They both were great leaders and impacted the Civil War in many ways. If it wasn’t for these leaders, history could have been impacted in many negative ways as well. In this essay, I will tell you how these generals showed qualities of leadership throughout this time in history.
Regardless of the career you choose in your life, whether it be an accountant or a Soldier in the United States Army, someone, somewhere most likely had an influence to bring you to that decision. The Army defines leadership as the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (JP, p. 1). Now imagine you are a young Private, in one of the most dangerous places in Iraq and you have constant leadership changes, and not much support from your direct leadership. I am sure at this point you can imagine, it is not the best scenario to be in. Throughout the duration of this essay you will read about Sergeant First Class Rob Gallagher and Sergeant First Class Jeff Fenlason, their leadership abilities, and the techniques they attempted to use to resolve the issues in this Platoon that was in a downward spiral after losing many leaders to the hell of war.
Many of his fellow generals even called his tactics reckless or uncanny of a German officer. However, this tactics were effective and efficient at neutralizing Allied forces with what little he had. His leadership style would be best described as Transformational, yet his personal interaction with individual soldiers would be Transactional. He was a transformational because he led the men by example, he believed that a commander should be more physically robust then his men, that commanders should always show them the example. He even gave up some special privileges to "live hard" with the men to raise morale and understand their conditions. Hence the men under his command were inspired and motivated on completing the missions at