h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Upon being handed the head of his upstart enemy Gaius Marius, the Roman General Sulla is reported to have said "First you must learn to pull an oar, only then can you take the helm"

But was he right?

In the Second Unpleasantness, the major war leaders were all military men who meddled in the war effort with varying degrees of success - Churchill made as many mistakes as good decisions, Stalin killed as many of his own as Hitler, who himself was seen as more of an aid to Allied success than a hindrance. The exception was Roosevelt who never served in the military and who undoubtedly led the USA to victory and set the post-war stage.

So, do you need to have experience on the shop floor to effectively lead at the top? Is a lack of experience an advantage?

Common sense and good judgment are never bad things to have. George Washington had military experience in the French and Indian War. He was reluctant to take the helm of the Continental Army. He wrote that the accepting of that commission would be the beginning of his misfortune. Instead, he won and went on to be president.

if you have military experience you can probably anticipate what the reaction will be, on the ground, to any tactical orders you give.

For eg: if you have been on the front lines, even as a Rupert, you will know that some orders will mean certain death for hundreds, maybe thousands, of people (soldiers, enemy soldiers, civilians) but that battle might win the war and potentially end it or save millions of lives. If this prevents you from making tactical decisions because you, personally, have a problem with killing people like you, that's not necessarily a good thing.

Depend depends doesn't it.

In 1914, 19th century trained professional soldiers went to war with 20th century machinery that most had no clue what carnage it could cause or what it would do to tactics, cavalry and the 'offensive'

So the 'professionals' then mostly ended up sacked or dead until many hard lessons had been learned.

Only 20-20 hindsight can know.

Sulla went to war with the armies that Gaius Marius had created - where would Sulla have been without Marius' Mules?

In my experience of being managed at work, the managers with no experience of the work being done did have fresh perspectives untainted with "how things are done round here". However, when it comes to understanding the detail of what they wanted to do, some knowledge of the practical side would have been useful, so that eg they wouldn't say to someone "do task X" and then ask the same person 1 hour later to do task Y as well, as they would know that X was a 3 hour task...

The problem really is that to understand the quote you really need to understand the story of Marius and Sulla.


Marius was the senior (and so not an upstart at all - he was killed in his seventh tenure as Roman Consul) - Sulla was a very talented general originally junior to him and much younger - Marius was an old and decrepit man by the time it all got to the point where they were at open war.

But Sulla was always the better politician (if historical consensus is to be believed - I believe expert historians on this - I can't read the original Latin) - Marius probably the better general but he'd had his time by this point. It was also factional between the Populares (Marius') and the Optimates (Sulla) - and really a continuation of the civil wars that ended the Republic.

So there is some merit to what Sulla said regarding his own situation, but it's hard to make generalisations on something that was specific between the two of them. Though you can draw conclusions of how generally true it is as a truism later down the line I suppose.

Sorry, seeing the other two threads I can see I've taken this a little seriously

"killing people like you" [Sho]

It's not the people "like" me that has me worried so much as the people who actually *are* me.

I think that Sho's comment of "people like you" was to the reality that the "enemy" is often someone just like you who has found themselves with rifle in-hand and duty-bound to defend their country's principles.

I have very rarely met a veteran of battles - 1914 to the present - who had animosity for their personal opponent. They are just the other guy's fodder ...

Good points, Nick. I read somewhere that during some of the long sieges of WWI, American and German soldiers would play cards with each other during their off hours.

"In the Second Unpleasantness, the major war leaders were all military men who meddled in the war effort with varying degrees of success"


Well, now, hold on. If I may, just, step away from the actual question here for a second:


1. Japan was essentially run by its military leaders, yes.

2. Churchill had extensive military experience, absolutely.

3. Hitler fought on the front lines in World War I, so okay.

BUT!

4. As far as I know (and I admit I could be very wrong), Stalin had absolutely no military experience. He just gave himself the rank of the rank of Field Marshal after the Germans were pushed out of Stalingrad because, I guess, he thought he deserved one for some reason.

Except (after the purge) he was really just approving the advice of his advisors, not coming up with stuff of his own.

AND!

5. Now, I know for a fact, FDR never served in the military. And as far as the historical record shows he really didn't meddle with his General's decisions *explicitly because* he was a political leader and he *damn well knew* that he wasn't qualified to make strategic or tactical decisions.

Hence, it can't be said, on a (and I emphasize) *strictly* military level, that FDR either hindered OR helped the Allied cause.



On a mostly unrelated note, I want to take this opportunity to recommend that everyone read the Pulitzer Prize winning book "No Ordinary Time" by Doris Kearns Goodwins, which is just SOOOOO GOOOOOD.

Yes, I know, it's big and fat. Yes, it will take some time get through it all. But trust me, you will absolutely not regret any time you spend reading this AMAZING book.

I second the enthusiasm for "No ordinary Time."