http://harringtongreen.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
harringtongreen.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2006-04-10 08:07 pm
harringtongreen.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2006-04-10 08:07 pm
Entry tags:
Tactics of War, Monday, 6 - 8 PM FHT
Admiral Harrington stood at the front of the room, arms crossed as she watched students file in. On the board behind her was the following text:
Generosity, rapaciousness
Cruelty, compassion
Faithless, faithful
Effeminate and cowardly, bold and brave
Affable, haughty
Lascivious, chaste
Sincere, cunning
Hard, easy
Grave, frivolous
Religious, unbelieving
Last week, we discussed the surprise attack. Discussion wasn’t quite as lively as it might have been, but I think the major point got through – a sneak attack, while possible, should never be assumed to work. When it does, it would be wise to thank whatever benefactors you believe in, press your advantage, and move on. And never assume that it will work a second time. Especially when the first time provided quite a bit of intelligence to the opposite side, such as your assets, tactics, and what you may or may not be willing to lose.
From his perch, Nimitz passed her an amused grin, with a flick of his tail. Honor grimaced at him, then moved to take a seat among the class. She folded herself into one of the smaller chairs, and regarded the students.
Today, we’re talking about another human factor you should consider when planning and executing an attack: Leadership.
There are tons of volumes out there about leadership in warfare – some of which are more modern than the readings I assigned you last class. I chose those particular readings, however, because they are representative of two very different schools of thought, two schools which still have application in present day.
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early 1500s as a sort of guideline for rulers – a way to gain and hold principalities. In it, he said that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.” One of the examples he gives is of Hamilcar, the Carthaginian. One morning Hamilcar assembled the people and senate of Syracuse to discuss items of interest to the Republic. [A]t a given signal, however, his soldiers killed the senators and the richest in attendance. With the “elites” dead, he then seized control of the city, and held it without resistance. Machiavelli suggests that it is best to do these deeds at the establishment of a principality – to foster an environment of leadership by fear – which, in turn, provides authority and a sense of legitimacy over time.
Later, in chapter eighteen, he says that it is best for leaders to study both the use of law and of force – one appropriate to men, the other to beasts. “[T]he first,” he says, “is frequently not sufficient, [and so] it is necessary to have recourse to the second.” Thus, the true leader knows well how to apply both when the situation calls for it.
He does offer a caution: “[I]t is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”
On the other side of the coin, we find General George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and later the American president.
From the very beginning, Washington was a self-made man. He devoted himself entirely to living by a series of social and ethical principles that he wrote down in his own hand. Unlike many of the gentry of his time period, and unlike many other military leaders who later go on to political prominence, he worked himself up to the rank of general with little assistance from sponsors, and definitely without the impressive record that history seems to indicate.
The Newburgh Address – one of two you were assigned to read – took place in March of 1783. For months – years, even! – the American Army had been fighting with substandard gear, a lack of food, and really, a lack of decisive victories. Morale of the troops was at an all time low, and many were beginning to wonder if the fight was entirely worth it. After all, they had been British to this point; could they not continue to do so?
The letter you read preceding the address was a circular which made the rounds of Washington’s company. His response, while a remarkable piece of rhetoric, was backed up by one small detail: He met his troops, at the time of their assembly, and wished to read this address aloud. In doing so, he theatrically reached into his pocket and withdrew a pair of reading glasses. He commented quietly to his men that, like them, he had sacrificed much, losing his eye sight in service of his country. Through this little bit of theatrics – or was it honesty? – combined with his appeal to logic and reason, Washington was able to diffuse the situation. He then proceeded to write the Continental Congress, apprising them of the situation, and urging them to make good on their promises to the servicemen.
It’s anecdotal, I know, and perhaps it’s even laced with my own appreciation of Washington’s talents. But in the end, the men who signed on for the American Army stayed with him – were willing to fight and to die with him – for a cause that was still very divisive.
Later, in his Farewell Address – also an assignment from last week – Washington stated that it was the trust of the people which drove him to sit two terms as president. “In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable.” Thus, rather than Machiavelli, who encouraged leaders to engender a sense of fear, Washington felt it important to engender and use trust as a political commodity. What strength of personality do you think it took for him to hold together his Army? Or a nation with two diametrically-opposed, developing political parties? Do you think a leader in the Machiavellian sense would be able to accomplish what Washington accomplished? Which would you prefer to follow?
It was clear from her tone that she wished for comments from the students. Intertwining her fingers at her waist, she crossed her legs and leant back slightly, waiting for comment. Once she felt the topic had been covered, or there was a lull in the conversation, she pushed herself to her feet and crossed the room. Nimitz perked up, crawling into her arms. He took his usual perch on her shoulder.
On the table, you'll find your finalhandwaved exam. Please pick one up on your way out the door. There are five essay questions, and a two-page-per-question minimum. They will be due two weeks from today. Use your time wisely.
Also on Monday of next week, we'll be enjoying the labors of my Chief Steward, James MacGuiness. You are each invited to dinner at Harrington House, where we will discuss the bigger picture: Politics and Grand Strategy. Contrary to popular belief -- even my own -- you sometimes have to sling a little mud with the rest of them. Your reading assignment includes chapters 18 and 22 in The Modern Prince.
As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If all goes as planned...I'll also have office hours again Friday evening.
She smiled slightly.
Thank you for your attention, ladies and gentlemen. Class dismissed.
[OCD threads coming up. OCD threads up!]
Generosity, rapaciousness
Cruelty, compassion
Faithless, faithful
Effeminate and cowardly, bold and brave
Affable, haughty
Lascivious, chaste
Sincere, cunning
Hard, easy
Grave, frivolous
Religious, unbelieving
Last week, we discussed the surprise attack. Discussion wasn’t quite as lively as it might have been, but I think the major point got through – a sneak attack, while possible, should never be assumed to work. When it does, it would be wise to thank whatever benefactors you believe in, press your advantage, and move on. And never assume that it will work a second time. Especially when the first time provided quite a bit of intelligence to the opposite side, such as your assets, tactics, and what you may or may not be willing to lose.
From his perch, Nimitz passed her an amused grin, with a flick of his tail. Honor grimaced at him, then moved to take a seat among the class. She folded herself into one of the smaller chairs, and regarded the students.
Today, we’re talking about another human factor you should consider when planning and executing an attack: Leadership.
There are tons of volumes out there about leadership in warfare – some of which are more modern than the readings I assigned you last class. I chose those particular readings, however, because they are representative of two very different schools of thought, two schools which still have application in present day.
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early 1500s as a sort of guideline for rulers – a way to gain and hold principalities. In it, he said that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.” One of the examples he gives is of Hamilcar, the Carthaginian. One morning Hamilcar assembled the people and senate of Syracuse to discuss items of interest to the Republic. [A]t a given signal, however, his soldiers killed the senators and the richest in attendance. With the “elites” dead, he then seized control of the city, and held it without resistance. Machiavelli suggests that it is best to do these deeds at the establishment of a principality – to foster an environment of leadership by fear – which, in turn, provides authority and a sense of legitimacy over time.
Later, in chapter eighteen, he says that it is best for leaders to study both the use of law and of force – one appropriate to men, the other to beasts. “[T]he first,” he says, “is frequently not sufficient, [and so] it is necessary to have recourse to the second.” Thus, the true leader knows well how to apply both when the situation calls for it.
He does offer a caution: “[I]t is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”
On the other side of the coin, we find General George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and later the American president.
From the very beginning, Washington was a self-made man. He devoted himself entirely to living by a series of social and ethical principles that he wrote down in his own hand. Unlike many of the gentry of his time period, and unlike many other military leaders who later go on to political prominence, he worked himself up to the rank of general with little assistance from sponsors, and definitely without the impressive record that history seems to indicate.
The Newburgh Address – one of two you were assigned to read – took place in March of 1783. For months – years, even! – the American Army had been fighting with substandard gear, a lack of food, and really, a lack of decisive victories. Morale of the troops was at an all time low, and many were beginning to wonder if the fight was entirely worth it. After all, they had been British to this point; could they not continue to do so?
The letter you read preceding the address was a circular which made the rounds of Washington’s company. His response, while a remarkable piece of rhetoric, was backed up by one small detail: He met his troops, at the time of their assembly, and wished to read this address aloud. In doing so, he theatrically reached into his pocket and withdrew a pair of reading glasses. He commented quietly to his men that, like them, he had sacrificed much, losing his eye sight in service of his country. Through this little bit of theatrics – or was it honesty? – combined with his appeal to logic and reason, Washington was able to diffuse the situation. He then proceeded to write the Continental Congress, apprising them of the situation, and urging them to make good on their promises to the servicemen.
It’s anecdotal, I know, and perhaps it’s even laced with my own appreciation of Washington’s talents. But in the end, the men who signed on for the American Army stayed with him – were willing to fight and to die with him – for a cause that was still very divisive.
Later, in his Farewell Address – also an assignment from last week – Washington stated that it was the trust of the people which drove him to sit two terms as president. “In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable.” Thus, rather than Machiavelli, who encouraged leaders to engender a sense of fear, Washington felt it important to engender and use trust as a political commodity. What strength of personality do you think it took for him to hold together his Army? Or a nation with two diametrically-opposed, developing political parties? Do you think a leader in the Machiavellian sense would be able to accomplish what Washington accomplished? Which would you prefer to follow?
It was clear from her tone that she wished for comments from the students. Intertwining her fingers at her waist, she crossed her legs and leant back slightly, waiting for comment. Once she felt the topic had been covered, or there was a lull in the conversation, she pushed herself to her feet and crossed the room. Nimitz perked up, crawling into her arms. He took his usual perch on her shoulder.
On the table, you'll find your final
Also on Monday of next week, we'll be enjoying the labors of my Chief Steward, James MacGuiness. You are each invited to dinner at Harrington House, where we will discuss the bigger picture: Politics and Grand Strategy. Contrary to popular belief -- even my own -- you sometimes have to sling a little mud with the rest of them. Your reading assignment includes chapters 18 and 22 in The Modern Prince.
As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If all goes as planned...I'll also have office hours again Friday evening.
She smiled slightly.
Thank you for your attention, ladies and gentlemen. Class dismissed.
[
Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Nimitz's tail reached around her and brushed at her nose -- at which the 'cat laughed. Heartily.
Honor could only give a low growl, though her amusement was apparent in her eyes. "No celery for you, Mister."
Nimitz did the only think he could do. He gave her a mental raspberry.
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Re: Sign In
Twenty Questions
Which would you prefer to follow?
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
"I think a Machiavellian-type leader would be able to accomplish what Washington accomplished," he said slowly, "but not in the same way. Because as carefully worded and inspiring as Washington's words were, sometimes asking nicely just won't work. What would he have done if the soldiers had said 'thanks but no?'" He pressed his lips together. "I don't think he would've just shrugged it off."
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
He tilted his head to the side slightly. "Not that there isn't a place for cynical manipulation. But it's probably done best with a sort of Washington-esque strength of personality and knowledge of doing the right thing for your own behind it."
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
"A leader who thought like this Machiavelli could certainly accomplish it, but he'd have to use completely different tactics. Ones instill fear in his troops, probably, or brainwashing, or who knows, because all that leader knows is it doesn't matter who he hurts in order to achieve his goal. And sometimes the cost isn't worth all that, but as long as the battle's won on that side, it's supposed to be fine." She may be a little vehement on this point.
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
"While both could theoretically work, I think I'd rather follow someone like Washington. That's the kind of leader my current CO is, really. And his bark is totally worse than his bite. Um. Literally."
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Re: Twenty Questions
Off-Topic Chatter
After Class
OOC