View single post by TimK
 Posted: Sun Apr 25th, 2010 08:19 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Going back a little bit to the conversation Ole and TD were having about in the middle of this thread - it seems as though an "oddball" or unconventional leader may an advantage during a war or battle. Patton, Sherman, Jackson, Forrest, and several others have been described as maybe a little (or a lot) crazy, but all were considered successful. Lee was probably the most straight arrow, but his successes were by using some maneuvers that were not maybe by the book. I honestly don't know enough about Eisenhower and Bradley during WW II to know if they were strictly by the book, or if they had some "oddball" type ideas for success.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, other than the thought that to be successful during wartime, maybe its best to do the unconventional. But that doesn't seem right, either. I'm open to any opinions.