A majority of the leaders who are considered good, several examples being Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, even Adolf Hitler were all considered good leaders and all served in war time.
Is it because they are in war that they are considered good leaders, or do they war because they are good leaders? It could easily be a necessity thing, forcing people to be effective, or it could be they are only considered good because of the war, or a mixture of both.
Do you think this hypothesis is correct? Does it somewhat justify war, if it were correct? And is it a coincidence that many of the good leaders once served in war?
Well, nothing justifies war to any good extent, but these people you listed are revered for their key service in wars. Leadership can come from any number of factors; whether it's being a good tactician, decision maker, morale-raiser, you can be a good leader from showing many different characteristics, but it does not necessarily have to be from serving in the war. These characters just showed their leadership by being in it.
Lincoln though? Really? I'm surprised you didn't put down Lee or Grant; they were much better leaders of his time. All Lincoln did for that war was just order the emancipation at the correct time to further demoralize the South after a victory.
Lincoln though? Really? I'm surprised you didn't put down Lee or Grant; they were much better leaders of his time. All Lincoln did for that war was just order the emancipation at the correct time to further demoralize the South after a victory.
I put Lincoln mainly do to his fame, everyone in America knows him. There were hundred of examples, Lee and Grant are just two more, I mainly focused on the famous ones and Alexander because he is awesome.
Lincoln though? Really? I'm surprised you didn't put down Lee or Grant; they were much better leaders of his time. All Lincoln did for that war was just order the emancipation at the correct time to further demoralize the South after a victory.
I'm surprised you said Lee and Grant were better leaders. Lee and Grant were tacticians in the art of war. They simply led their men into battle. Lincoln, playing a bigger part in the way than you give credit, was not a military commander, but president of the United States. I'm not saying any of them were better leaders than the other, but they weren't the same kind of leaders.
There were many better leaders. It just boils down to necessity. There were many bad and okayish leaders during wars. War doesn't really affect it as much.
As for military commanders, their entire business is war, so I don't really think they can count.
They were "good" leaders because they all won major battles. Simple as that...
I would say it's the other way around, they won major battles because they were good leaders. I don't think it takes war to be a good leader, but war often brings the best and worst out of us and is far to often glorified. With such a mix it's no wonder those who rise to the top in major wars often get remembered and revered.
