PROFESSIONAL FORUM

“Leadership is the thing that winsbattles. I have it, but I’ll be damned if Ican define it. It probably consists ofknowing what you want to do, and thendoing it and getting mad as hell if anyonetries to get in your way.”

— The Unknown Patton by CharlesProvince

Notwithstanding its intangible nature,leadership is often the singular, decisiveelement in achieving battlefield success.Other factors, including weapons,technology, logistics and industrialcapacity, significantly aid an army inovercoming an adversary. Moreover, theseenvironmental necessities are strategicobjectives that a nation develops to supportits armed forces and are usually beyond theimmediate control of a commander.Leadership, however, is the drivingmechanism behind the structural factorsthat a country provides to its commandersand it alone, is the “thing that wins battles,”according to General Patton.

All else being equal among armies,superior leadership will allow one army todefeat another. More importantly, superiorleadership can inspire a weaker army toovercome logistical and physicaldisadvantages and thus defeat a force largerin terms of numbers and equipment.Leadership is the catalyst of the underlyingreactions whose ingredients include, but arenot limited to manpower, logistics, morale,and technology.

Logically then, the question arises: Howcan we improve the level of leadership insuch a way that we, as an army, maximizeour potential as a fighting force? Our

COLONEL JOSEPH C. CARTERMAJOR MICHAEL S. FINER

STONEWALL JACKSON

AND

GEORGE S. PATTON

methodology presumes that the best way toprepare the leaders of the future for battle isto study successful leaders in battles of thepast.

Utilizing the “trait” approach to leadershiptheory, certain common, demonstrablequalities will emerge to assist in theunderstanding of what it takes to become asuperior military leader. We shall examinethe lives of Stonewall Jackson and GeorgePatton to unravel the common qualities ofAmerica’s two finest military tacticians.

These Soldiers shared two commoncharacteristics — strong historicalknowledge and the ability to tacticallyemploy mass, which made each man a goodgeneral. General Jackson possessed anadditional mystical leadership quality,which allowed him to become the finestcommander to ever fight on American soil.Similarly, General Patton possessed aninspirational leadership quality, whichmade him second to only Stonewall Jacksonin terms of battlefield success. We shallendeavor to identify those characteristicswhich each man shared, and we shalldescribe the specific quality which madeeach man a superb military leader, but invery different ways.

THOMAS JONATHAN JACKSON – TheBeginning of an Enigma

Thomas Jonathan Jackson was born in1824 in rural Virginia. His formal educationwas severely limited by the fact that he wasorphaned at the age of 6; he was continuallyshuffled from relative to relative duringchildhood and largely without the companyor support of his siblings. At the age of 17,

Jackson was accepted into West Point wherehe clearly had a difficult time assimilatingwith other cadets. Not only was he of humblemeans and of unusual disposition, his stationwas not comparable to incoming plebes suchas George McClellan, A.P. Hill and JamesLongstreet.

At West Point, “Old Jack” was mostremembered for his indelible perseverance,and paradoxically, for his generosity toothers. At the end of his first year at WestPoint, he stood 70th in French, 45th inmath, and 51st in general merit out of classof 72. Three years later, he stood 5th inethics (his favorite subject), 12th inengineering and 11th in artillery. WhetherJackson was less gifted than other studentsor was educated in an inferior manner, onecannot determine. More revealing,however, he undeniably demonstrated hisindomitable will, his desire to press on, andhis fastidious nature by spending inordinateamounts of time preparing his lessons andcontinually improving his class standing.

GEORGE SMITH PATTON, JR. – AConnoisseur of Military History

George Smith Patton, Jr. was born intoa loving, patrician family in SouthernCalifornia. In the late 19th century, thePatton family moved from Virginia toCalifornia where it accumulated significantwealth as cattle farmers and throughpropitious marital combination. The Pattonfamily enjoyed a long and honorablemilitary heritage, which included Patton’sgrandfather, who was buried a BrigadierGeneral, after being mortally wounded atthe Battle of Winchester in the Shenandoah

A Survey ofLeadership

10 INFANTRY January-February 2004

Valley, while commanding the 22nd Virginia Regiment.One of the senior Patton’s closest friends was Colonel John

Singleton Mosby, the fabled “grey ghost” of “Jeb” Stuart’s mightycavalry and the namesake of Mosby’s Rangers. In the book, TheUnknown Patton, author Charles Province states that Mosby oftenvisited the Patton’s elegant California ranch. “Colonel Mosbywould reenact the Civil War with George junior; playing himself,he let George play the part of General Lee as they evoked thebattles of the war…”

“Georgie” spent one year at VMI (Virginia Military Institute)in preparation for the five that he spent at West Point where, asthe necessity of an additional year indicates, he was an averagestudent. Whether or not his secondary education was the cause ofhis lack of achievement at West Point is a matter of conjecture. Itmust be noted that Patton did not enter into formal educationuntil he was 11 years old, and much speculation has occurredregarding this fact to include the widespread theory that Pattonwas dyslexic. More likely, it appears that Patton’s father preferrededucation via the oral tradition. For example, during his youth,“Georgie” was not taught to read and write. He was entirely readto. In this manner, the senior Patton believed that “Georgie” wouldnaturally develop his true interests.

Patton distinguished himself for bravery in both the MexicanWar and World War I. In the Mexican War, he captured andkilled the bodyguard of Francisco Pancho Villa in a daring, almostreckless raid, and in World War I he was cited for battlefieldbravery.

During the intervening period between the World Wars, Pattonstudied extraordinary amounts of military history. When Pattondied, it is said that he possessed a military library so vast that itrivaled certain military institutions, a well-utilized advantage ofbeing one of the wealthier officers in the Army. Although he wasintermittently depressed by the lack of warfare during this timeperiod, Patton published several treatises and articles whichsummarized his conclusions and ideas regarding war to includecommentary on leaders of the past to include Caesar, Napoleonand Stonewall Jackson.

Stonewall Jackson’s MaximsIn the book, Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War,

author G.F.R. Henderson refers to General Jackson’s personaldiscourse with General Imboden. In one message, Jackson notedthat:

“There are two things never to be lost sight of by a militarycommander. Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy,if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never giveup the pursuit as long as your men have strength to follow; foran army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, andcan then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is,never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuveringyou can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakestpart, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win everytime, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail,and repeated victory will make it invincible.”These remarks of General Jackson, clearly a reflection of

Napoleon’s influence upon him, summarize his thoughts of howan army should fight. I will take the liberty of dissecting Jackson’s

message to General Imboden into a more simplistic form in orderto analyze the specific characteristics that Jackson possessed andutilized in battle. Unlike George Patton, published works byJackson are rare, and thus, one must infer as to his personal viewswithout the assistance of autobiographical or other sources.

Stonewall’s Rule Number One (Valley and WildernessCampaigns) — Mystify, mislead and surprise.

Jackson’s most brilliant and well-known use of this preceptoccurred when he vanished from the Valley and appeared in theFirst Wilderness Campaign ready, willing and able to attackMcClellan. Unfortunately, McClellan’s hubris contributed to histotal disregard of the possibility that “Old Jack” could havemaneuvered his troops so far so quickly. What allowed Jacksonto mislead “Young Napoleon” so thoroughly? Remember thatJackson achieved a lower class rank at West Point than didMcClellan, and thus, he was compelled to achieve success by gooddeed, for he was without predisposition to high command due tostation or class standing.

Stonewall’s Rule Number Two (Chancellorsville) — Presson.

By mercilessly force-marching his army, Jackson appeared atHooker’s rear without detection, despite reports provided to Hookerby competent staff officers. On that fateful day, Stonewall Jacksondevastated Hooker’s right flank and rear areas in a classicenvelopment movement that caused unprecedented panic andeventual retreat among the Federals. Jackson’s superior leadershipwas the result, in part, of his personal belief that the mission mustbe accomplished first and foremost, regardless of how hard themen must be pushed.

Stonewall’s Rule Number Three (Chancellorsville) — Mass.In Jackson’s final and most brilliant battle, he integrated all

three of his time-tested principles in one glorious stroke of militarygenius. Again at Chancellorsville, Jackson hurled his entire corpsin a vast flanking attack. Lee and Jackson agreed to mass Jackson’scorps for the purpose of attacking Hooker in detail. In theconfusion of battle, Jackson was killed by his own troops whilere-entering his lines after infiltrating enemy positions whenreconnoitering the federal battle scenario. On the day of hisgreatest victory, he and his doctrine were initiated into immortalitydue to a misunderstanding with friendly sentries.

Although the aforementioned summary of Stonewall’s maximsdoes not do a scholar justice, it does concisely represent thesubstance of his success. Jackson applied these simple principleswith logical brilliance and complexity.

Jackson demonstrated these principles in his battles in theValley, at First and Second Manassas, and in the Wilderness to alesser extent. His skills with respect to tactical ability were purebecause, unlike his opponents he was unable to rely on personalcharisma or natural beauty to inspire his troops. Instead, hismaxims, his indomitable will, his uncanny ability to evaluatetopography and his superior feats of personal concentration onthe battlefield allowed him to motivate troops by providing constantsuccess. By also reporting the first victories to the Confederacy,print-media reinforced his successes, and even exaggerated some

January-February 2004 INFANTRY 11

of them. Nonetheless, the prime benefit ofthis exposure was an identity and esprit-de-corps for his troops, something thatGeneral Patton would note in his study ofhistory.

Patton’s Military MaximsIn a paper titled “The Secret of Victory,”

Patton lucidly elaborated his philosophy,which at the time (March 26, 1926) wasthe epic summary of years of intensivemilitary history study. Patton identifiedthree essential elements, which he believedwere unequivocally essential for acommander to possess in order to achievethe ultimate result — victory.

Patton’s Three Elements for VictoryInspiration * Knowledge * Force (Mass)

Patton’s Rule Number One —Inspiration.

Patton firmly believed that certainlopsided victories of Caesar, Napoleon, andGrant were the primary result of “spiritual”inspiration and motivation, and thesecondary result of mental ability. Pattonexplained that there was a distinctionbetween mental ability and the executionof battle plans. He commented that“Hooker’s plan at Chancellorsville wasmasterly; its execution cost him the battle.”

Of course, it may be that thesuperhuman maneuvering of Jacksondefeated his plan, a supposition which SunTzu would have agreed with when heobserved that: “What is of supremeimportance in war is to attack the enemy’sstrategy.”

Patton’s Rule Number Two —Knowledge.

Patton noted that Napoleon won manybattles when outnumbered, but he never losta battle in which he possessed numericallysuperior forces. Patton consideredNapoleon the epitome of military ability,and as such comprehensively studied hiscareer battles. Patton further postulatedthat no single element — inspiration,knowledge, or mass — was dominant.

In “Helpful Hints for Hopeful Heroes,”he wrote that “any operation, reduced toits primary characteristics, consists ofmoving down the road until you bump intothe enemy… When you have bumped, holdhim at the point of contact with fire with

about a third of your command. Move therest in a wide envelopment so you canattack him from his rear flank.”

Patton’s tactical victories in WorldWar II were characterized by wideflanking maneuvering tactics. His marchacross France was certainly influenced bythe conquests of Caesar in Gaul andNapoleon in Italy. His unrewarded, yetnow immortal, relief of the 101st Divisionat Bastogne was “Stonewallesque” in thathe force-marched and pushed footinfantry to inhuman levels.

Patton felt that inspiration was the mostimportant of the three tenets: knowledgeand mass being equally less important. Hemakes an analogy to bread, whichunleavened will sustain life, but will be dulltasting; however, when leavened, it isdelicious. Personality (inspiration) is theleaven of armies. Let us make theassumption that armies produce men ofequal military knowledge. Hence, withequal knowledge existent, inspiration willbe the catalyst necessary to win battles, forknowledge alone of how to win battlescannot be fully transmitted unencumberedto subordinates.

Patton’s Rule Number Three — Mass.In the Memoirs of U.S. Grant, General

PROFESSIONAL FORUM

Department of Defense photo

General George S. Patton acknowledges the cheers of the crowd in Los Angeles on June 9, 1945.

Grant presents similar ideas and discussestheir interrelationships. For example,Grant had more success in the campaignsin the west than he did in the east againstGeneral Lee, even though his forces werenumerically inferior in the west. In thewest, however, Grant inspired his troopsand utilized his superior knowledge ofmaneuver to seize Vicksburg and otherConfederate strongholds against inferior,if you will, commanders. Conversely,against Robert E. Lee, who possessed, atthe very least, equal abilities with respectto inspiration and knowledge, Grant wasforced to use mass, the least desirable ofthe three tenets, to achieve victory.Accordingly, Grant believed that a generalshould attain victory first by inspiration,second by superior knowledge or militaryarts, and then by mass/force.

Patton abided by these tenets in theirrightful order. In Sicily, he was forced toutilize mass as a last resort becausemaneuver was not producing desirableresults. On the other hand, he inspired histroops and utilized superior knowledge tooutmaneuver his opponents in his famousmarch across France. Patton, like Jackson,only resorted to mass when faced by anequally knowledgeable and inspiredcommander.

12 INFANTRY January-February 2004

Salient Common CharacteristicsThomas Jonathan Jackson and George Smith Patton Jr., had

nothing in common. Jackson was poor and an orphan; Pattonwas wealthy and well loved. Jackson was shy, quiet, andhypochondriac; Patton was a socialite, athletic at an Olympianlevel, articulate, and extroverted. Jackson was intensely religious;Patton’s religion related to convenience. What was not readilyobvious, however, was a common philosophy that was notessentially identical. Both men implemented a brand of inspirationthat allowed their troops to maneuver at incredible speeds, andthus were able to shock and surprise the enemy with superior forceat weak points at undesirable times. The differences in personality,temperament, and station are unmistakable; the similarities inleadership, single-mindedness, and knowledge are striking.

Based on this analysis, there are two identifiable characteristicsthat both men possessed which made each, and indeed everycommander who possesses them, a good commander:

* Knowledge of history, and* Effective utilization of mass.Both Generals were devout students of military history and

understood the distinction between effective massing of force andunnecessary slaughter. What characteristics propelled each generalto greatness? This is where the similarities end and individualitybegins. Patton used personal inspiration to motivate his troops,and his battlefield exploits are legendary. His utilization oftheatrical motivational techniques provided stimuli to his troopswhich allowed them to have unparalleled success.

Jackson’s mystical qualities made him a demigod among histroops; he was literally worshiped by his men. His philosophy tonever inform his subordinates of his upcoming maneuver plansallowed his armies to abruptly surprise the enemy. His introvertednature and religious fervor often confused his peers; his humility,lack of ambition, and strict disciplinary nature made him anenigma. This unpredictability, coupled with his knowledge ofmilitary history and use of mass and maneuver, made StonewallJackson America’s finest tactical general.

Jackson inspired his troops by use of his indomitable will. Heforced his troops to push themselves, and by doing so they weresuccessful in their first battle, at First Manassas. Of course, successbegets success and by gaining their confidence, Jackson was ableto apply superior analytical abilities while pushing his forces tophysical exhaustion. Why was he able to do this?

Jackson had proven himself as a leader, and his menunquestionably believed in him. The praise and glory heapedupon them only multiplied the utility of Jackson. He in no wayutilized charm or personal charisma to inspire his troops. Inanother way, by use of mystique, he inspired his troops, and onceinspired, he applied his tenets to achieve victory.

George Patton utilized personal inspiration and charisma tomotivate his troops. Once inspired and victorious, the troopsnaturally adjusted and improved to a level where they felt thatthey were infallible. In addition, Patton was a devout student ofmilitary history, which included a study of Jackson. Patton’s sisteronce stated that until George was 15, “Georgie” thought that thesteel statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in their housewere those of God and Jesus Christ, respectively! How much of

this is hyperbole, we do not know, but it does unquestionablyillustrate that Patton had the advantage of studying StonewallJackson.

What can be said, though, is that both Jackson and Patton hada definite understanding of how successful wars ought to be foughtand those views resulted from studying the great generals of thepast. As Napoleon observed:

“Read again and again the campaigns of Hannibal, Caesar,Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Eugene, and Frederick. Modelyourself upon them. This is the only means of becoming a greatcaptain, and of acquiring the secret of the art of war…” (TheMilitary Maxims of Napolean, David G. Chandler)

Who would have won a battle between George Pattonand Stonewall Jackson? It is, of course, difficult tohypothesize upon a matter such as this, for neither

general truly fought against a commander of equal ability, as didLee and Grant or Napoleon and Wellington, thus affording such acomparison. By refocusing the question, though, there are otherintangible items that this analysis can assist the current Army inunderstanding.

For example, there is an interesting phenomenon that hasmanifested throughout modern warfare, and it is particularlyendemic in the United States Army: Soldiers who succeed duringpeacetime, administering the Army, and who, as a result, advanceto general officer rank, tend to be unsuccessful in actual combatand are summarily replaced by less well-known officers. BothThomas Jackson and George Patton achieved little notoriety duringtheir pre-war careers. Although they both fought courageouslyand gallantly in wars at junior ranks, their careers proceeded slowlybefore the beginning of the next war.

Based on an analysis of these two immortal figures, it is strikingto realize that there are two distinct pathways for one to historicallyascertain general officer status in the Army. The first pathwaydevelops during peacetime and requires a specific set ofadministrative, political and leadership skills. On the other hand,the second pathway develops during combat and requires distinctlydifferent skills, particularly with respect to leadership.

What can one gain from this commentary and analysis? Thefollowing tenets should be internalized by every officer in the Army.

To become a good, solid commander follow these precepts:Knowledge – Study the warriors of the past and absorb their

maxims. These include Caesar, Napoleon, Jackson, Lee, Grantand Patton, for example.

Mass – Understand the difference in the application and use ofsuperior and inferior forces.

To become “a great captain of warfare” apply this principle:Single-minded determination – Whether it is personal

inspiration or mystical qualities, adapt your personality to itemsone and two and become a true warrior.

Colonel Joseph C. Carter currently serves as Strategic Planner, JointForce Headquarters-Massachusetts. He is an Army War College and ArmyCommand and General Staff College graduate.

Major Michael S. Finer was commissioned in 1987 from Boston UniversityROTC. He is a Navy War College and Marine Corps Command and StaffCollege graduate and Ph.D. candidate. He is currently serving as the S-1 ofthe 26th Infantry Brigade in the Massachusetts Army National Guard.

January-February 2004 INFANTRY 13