Military Leadership Test.

i got patton

Wesley Clark.

Biography:
Graduating from West Point at the head of his class, Wes Clark has achieved success throughout his military career. He served in Vietnam; was a key negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords; and was head of the U.S. European Command. Clark was an Armor Officer who commanded at every level from company to division. As Supreme Allied Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he led the 19-member alliance to victory in Kosovo — NATO's longest and most difficult military campaign.

Leadership Attributes:
Clark has had a distinguished military career. As Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, he directed all U.S. forces in Latin America and the Caribbean. As the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff, he was the staff officer responsible for U.S. military strategic planning. Clark is also known for considerable diplomatic prowess — he was chiefly responsible for holding together the 19-member NATO alliance in Kosovo. He was also the lead military negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords that brought the war in the former Yugoslavia to a halt.

Another Bradley.

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington!

Quote:

---

Biography:
Known as the Iron Duke, the Duke of Wellington was an accomplished leader both politically and militarily. After attending military school, he was sent to India, where he defeated the Tipu Sultan and the Marathas. When the Portuguese rose against Napoleon, Wellesley was ordered to support them, and he won success in what became known as the Peninsular War. He invaded France days after Napoleon abdicated. However, when Napoleon escaped exile and rose again, Wellington and the Prussian field marshal Gebhard Leberecht Blücher defeated him at the famous battle of Waterloo. Consequently, he became Britain's greatest hero. He later leveraged his popularity on the battlefield to become Prime Minister.

Leadership Attributes:
Wellington was known as a cautious general and a careful planner. He paid great attention to detail, with outstanding results. He was as great a diplomat as warrior. After victory at Assaye in India, he personally negotiated the treaty. A hero of the entire nation, Wellington was reserved and unassuming.

---

http://www.military.com/LeaderShipTe...d.htm,,00.html

I got Grant.

Patton for me - funny though - I almost always seem to be having my rear end handed to me!!!!

Grant.

I wanted Sherman, but Grant is kind of cool because I'm related to him. He was my grandmother's great uncle or something like that.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

George Washington

Douglas MacArthur!

I got Bradley. His answers just seemed self-evidently right. (The only one I paused over was on going to the Front).

But I think the quiz got Wellington wrong - to get him, you need the same responses as Bradley (Q1: Plan; Q3: Go to the Front; Q4: Negotiate) except that Q2 should be a detailed, not general, plan.

Yet one of the most memorable things I recall Wellington having said was when he compared himself to Massena. He said Massena created intricate plans, like a harness with many leads. The problem with that was that if things went wrong, it was very hard to fix the plan. By contrast, he - Wellington - made a simple plan like a sturdy rope, so that if things went wrong, it was easy to tie a knot and fix it.

Nelson for me.

I got Robert E. Lee.

Another Wesley Clark.

I got Robert E. Lee

Teddy Roosevelt. w00t

one of my favorite presidents and idols, and also ironically enough the inspiration for my sig.

Teddy Roosevelt!

Quid

Interesting. I'm the only one thus far to have gotten William Tecumseh Sherman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

William C. Westmoreland for me. Never heard of him before today though.

---

He was the senior commander of American forces in Vietnam.

Robert E. Lee

I. am. the. ultimate.

I got George Washington

Lee for me as well.

Regarding Wellington, the way he saw and wrote about himself and the way he is regarded by history are somewhat different, naturally. :beam:

Patton for me. No surprise there.

Another Patton.

Ha, George Washington. :beam:

Omar Bradley

teddy roosevelt

Patton. :2thumbsup:

For all you Bradley's out there, question... the only difference between the Bradley model and the Patton model was whether you consider it appropriate to conduct your own negotiations, or you would consult a diplomat from the state department or some such.

Do you really think it's advisable to have military generals drawing up long term peace treaties without external inputs? Doesn't that put the whole notion of an army controlled by a civilian population back on its heels a bit?

Maybe; but wouldn't we discuss that in the friendly, neighborhood backroom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

For all you Bradley's out there, question... the only difference between the Bradley model and the Patton model was whether you consider it appropriate to conduct your own negotiations, or you would consult a diplomat from the state department or some such.

Do you really think it's advisable to have military generals drawing up long term peace treaties without external inputs? Doesn't that put the whole notion of an army controlled by a civilian population back on its heels a bit?

---

We're talking about negotiating the surrender of enemy troops in a specific sector, not talking about negotiating the surrender of a whole country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

For all you Bradley's out there, question... the only difference between the Bradley model and the Patton model was whether you consider it appropriate to conduct your own negotiations, or you would consult a diplomat from the state department or some such.

Do you really think it's advisable to have military generals drawing up long term peace treaties without external inputs? Doesn't that put the whole notion of an army controlled by a civilian population back on its heels a bit?

---

Fair point, but the question was about terms of surrender in a sector, not a long term peace treaty. I always thought terms of local surrenders were decided by the generals on the ground ("unconditional surrender" by Grant, for example). But maybe with modern communications and politics, that is no longer true.

The outline conditions for the ceasefire - protect the enemy general's family and keep out of the religious sites - seemed sensible and unobjectionable.

By contrast, a few things in the the Patton option put me off. Preparing to resume offensive operations, including attacking the religious sites seemed overly aggressive (truly Pattonesque). But conversely, suspending operations while waiting for the State Department to do something seemed not aggressive enough (maybe the enemy are stalling for time or will rethink or listen to their bellicose politicians...). In fact, I'd be more inclined to get the politicians to authorise a suspension of operations than to negotiate a surrender - it seems a bigger step.