Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of successful leadership in the military
Military leadership philosophy essay
Military leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of successful leadership in the military
Jake Noviello Period B Mr. Perkins 22 January 2015 What makes a nation strong? “‘I am sometimes a fox and sometimes a lion. The whole secret of government lies in knowing when to be the one or the other.’” When Napoleon Bonaparte spoke this inspirational quote, he was on the brink of creating one of the most powerful countries the world had ever seen. For a country to be considered strong, they need to have several crucial and powerful parts in their nation. Throughout history, many countries and leaders needed to become stronger mentally and physically to be able to become strong. A powerful country needs to have a strong, educated leader, a strong economy, and positive international ties. A nation can be considered strong if the have a strong and educated leader. Going back in history, countries have been decided by the type of leader they have; whether it be a passive, aggressive, strong or weak. For example, Napoleon Bonaparte was an educated man who took actions to conquer land and set a common rule book. Back when he took control of France, it was chaos. One of …show more content…
For example, the American Revolution is an example of when countries helped one another out to defeat a common enemy. When the 13 colonies declared their independence from England, France and Spain both supported the colonists, since they both wanted a piece of England in the fight. Without these two powerful allies in the fight, the colonists would have lost the war against the British. Another example of positive international ties was at the famous Battle at Waterloo. In this war, Napoleon Bonaparte fought his last war against the British and the Prussians. Alone, these two countries knew they could not hold off Napoleon, so they decided to team up and outsmart the man himself, beating one of the most powerful armies in the world at their own game. As you can see, positive international ties can make and keep a nation
dependable citizen? There are many different perspectives on a good citizen. Do we need strong
The eradication of Charles I from power in England allowed the country to become the major superpower of the world by the end of the 18th century. A superpower is defined as an extremely powerful nation, especially one capable of influencing international events and and policies of less powerful nations. Many common characteristics are prominent when concluding whether a country is a superpower or not, including an educated populace, a healthy economy, a rich culture, a strong military, a large land mass, and a stable government. The beheading of Charles directly relates to each of these aspects of a superpower, through one way or another. Scientific discoveries resulting from the push for education after Charles I’s death and their benefits to the economy and culture accommodate the educational, economical, and culture characteristics of a superpower. The military expansion, conquering of new lands and spread of culture after Charles accommodates the military and land mass aspects. And finally, Parliament’s eventual takeover of the government accommodates the stable government necessity of a superpower.
We as Americans, think that we have our lives pretty good. We feel that as we call ourselves, a part of the “Greatest Country in the World.” How? How can we be a part of the “Greatest Nation in the World” if we are so far behind all the other countries in the world in so many aspects and areas. What happened to us? What happened to America trying to be so great and free? How can we get us back in that direction?
In a recent verbal bout with my History of the Military Art professor, I contended that the true might of a nation may be inversely proportional to the size of its military during peacetime. My thinking, though perhaps idealistic, was that the maintenance of a large military during relative international tranquility is an overt admission of weakness and increases the likelihood of unnecessarily employing that force—it is contextually irrelevant. Instead, I proposed that a strong and stable economy is the best metric of national prowess, for such an economy can resource many opportunities as they arise. On the contrary, a robust standing military has a much narrower utility. To be sure, this author is not one that intentionally seeks to take an interdisciplinary approach to academia, but the connection seems relevant given the nature of this assignment. Whereas a nation may accomplish a strategic goal through military force, a leader may accomplish a task relying upon coercive power; whereas a nation may transform and develop the world through its economic strength and versatility, a versatile leader may transform others through the employment of one or many leader development principles—both theoretically based and experientially acquired. This piece serves to describe acquired PL499 course concepts and their relevance to my project team and the West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS). Only through a...
Such alliances are the very things that laid the foundation for the conflict of World War I because every country had multiple reasons for joining their respective alliance, mainly for revenge, distrust, or
A powerful leader is needed to guide a country through tough times. Weak leaders are likely to crumble under the pressure. An example of a powerful leader was George Washington. After winning the Revolutionary War, he had total control over his army, who would obey his every command without question. He was so powerful he could have taken over the United States himself. Julius Caesar was another extremely powerful leader. Julius Caesar was a strong, persuasive political and military leader of ancient Rome who shaped Roman life and set the precedent for other Roman leaders who followed. An important primary source for understanding Julius Caesar is his speech “The Alternative of Exile.” It shows his fairness, pervasiveness, and power that led him to become such a powerful leader.
According to this theory great leaders are born, not made. These great leaders have inherited few or several favorable traits which distinguishes them from common people. For example, Napoleon, Mao-se-Tung are considered to be natural leaders, who have had all qualities of leadership built-in them(Biju 2010). The great man theory notion has been used for the first time by Carlyle in his article on heroes, he has defined the leader as someone gifted with a set of an exceptional qualities which capture the minds and souls of the public(Carlyle 1993).
Patriotism begins with knowing some historic background of one’s country. The following is a short intro to pass through the timeline of USA’s history. Most Americans have heard that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. He came to what is now America. Several years pass and George Washington becomes the first president. This is when the constitution is ratified. The constitution declares our freedoms as American citizens. States begin to form, such as Vermont and Kentucky. They were the first two states to be admitted to the United States. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had the presidential terms in the late 1700s and early 1800s.
Alliances between European nations can also be considered an underlying cause of World War I. As a result of the Triple Alliance consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, the Triple Entente (understanding) was formed between France, Britain, and Russia. Although France and Britain were natural enemies, their fear of Germany united them together with Russia. These alliances set the final stage for the beginning of World War I. Each country in each alliance would help each other during warfare. For example, if Germany attacked France, Britain and Russia would help France, and Italy and Austria would help Germany, dragging Europe into a state of chaos and violence.
Military forces are a great example of this because they create their groups based on a firm build. They have to be well put together and have the strength to defeat the opposing side. The country that the military force fights for has strength in them. They rely on their military forces to protect them and their freedom. If the military is not sturdy enough, they will not have the strength to keep the country safe, which could possibly lead to the fall of their country. This is similar to how bridges are constructed. In order for bridges not to collapse, they must have a sturdy build. They can be built in many ways. Some are built with cables and are known as cable bridges, some just go straight across called simple-beam bridges, and others have an arch shape known as arch bridges. No matter how it was built, it must be firmly planted so it can bear the weight of vehicles or pedestrians crossing it daily. Aside from bridges and military, there’s another less common type of strength. That is having strength in something. Many people have a religion they follow and they find strength and hope in their deity. It helps them “stay strong” or become more muscular and they have to be firmly planted in their belief. Keeping a grip on one’s religion is often a difficult task, but it shows strength
The coalitions brought by the Versailles Treaty contributed greatly to starting WWII. The Treaty was responsible for the formation of the Allies. However, when made, these alliances were based on promises from the superpowers, particularly France. This ensured that Germany would not have support from the smaller countries in Europe (Document B). Belgium had aligned itself with France previously, and it continued to do so, but Czechoslovakia and Poland...
Alliances were one of the reasons why there was World War I. The alliances started as Triple Entente and Triple Alliance. The Triple Entente involved three countries which were Britain, France and Russia. For Triple Alliance, there were Germany, Austria Hungary and Italy. Then later on the alliances involved more countries and the alliances were called Central powers and Allies. They became alliances secretly during the 19th century.
Then again, they did also create tensions between the countries that could only escalate further. For example, in the year 1879 there was a dual alliance created between Germany and Austria-Hungary. This alliance was created to protect them from Russia, which was the biggest European power at the time. Instead of protecting them and adding extra support, however, it only managed to strengthen their tensions with Russia and light the match for something even more unpleasant. Overall, while alliances were a way of buffering countries stats, they also attracted some unwonted attention in the process.
The Alliances not only contributed to war breaking out; it made the war last longer and become on a much larger scale; major political disputes would inevitably cause a large conflict. The alliances caused suspicion, fear, and tension among nations. The two camps were the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary). When countries formed alliances with each other it gave them protection, if a country was threatened or under attack then the alliance would come to that country’s aid. Countries made an alliance when they both needed protection from a stronger country. When Austria-Hungary had heard about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand they went to war with Serbia which resulted in a chain reaction of countries going to war with one another, and when countries teamed up to support their attacked friends when war came, it meant that a number of nations would fight, not only the two involved in a dispute. The division of...
To be a great orator, a visionary and a strategic thinker all make up a good leader, but by having all these traits doesn 't make up for the loss of the other things that a leader should have, like the ability to listen to his people 's need and the ability to think for the better of the nation instead of the power hungry attitude that ambition can led you