So today in class, we began to wrap up our discussion on The Killer Angels. Mr. Crotty asked us if we liked the book, so naturally I thought about what aspects of the book I liked and disliked. Overall, I enjoyed reading this one more than the Illiad and Troilus and Cressida just because the language is slightly easier to understand. However, thinking back on our fishbowl excercise, I thought about one thing that really resonated with me after we finished the book.
We read out loud several passages that gave us a good idea about the styles of leadership among those in command. For General Lee, we decided that he saw the men as expendable pawns, and had no problem sacrificing them for what he thought could better the army. I, and most of our class, agreed that not only is an odd way of seeing people, but it is also wrong from a tactical standpoint.
Next we looked at Longstreet. He was very defensive with his decisions, seeing the men as people and not just numbers. Again, I, was not completely sold on his philosophy of war. Sure it's better to value your men, however as a leader you cannot put the lives of individuals before the survival of the army. I'm glad that Longstreet doesn't want to throw his men into a gauntlet like Lee does, but not wanting to get your hands dirty takes away from the overall effectiveness of a leader.
Finally, we looked at Chamberlin on the Union side. We read a passage in which he sent his own brother to defend a pass. His brother likely died, but that action demonstrates why I think Chamberlin is the better leader of the three. He is willing to make risks (i.e. sending his brother to his death), but he is much more aware of when the situation calls for actions like that. He won't just send people to die if there is no purpose. He thinks logically about his actions. While Lee just does what he wants and Longstreet who over thinks his decisions, Chamberlin is a perfect balance of the two, which is what makes him an effective leader.
An important part of being a leader is being open minded. If you just do whatever you want and ignore those who oppose you, there is no way you will come out successfully. To me, leadership is having a balance of logic and risk; a balance of a killer and an angel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree that a great leader must have a balance of logic and risk in his decisions. We discussed that Lee had no control over his actions. The character presented in the book is unable to communicate openly about military tactics or think of the war from a different perspective. Lee's decisions are based on logic that god is supposed to help lead the confederates to victory. I don't think Lee is aware of the risks he is taking in war, because he believes that it is god’s will and decision to determine the outcome of the war. Chamberlain may not have the same military resume as Lee, but he approaches the war with logic and understands the realities of war.
I don't think Longstreet purposefully tries to protect his men at the expense of his own army. I don't see how his tactics would dispense of the Confederate army anyways. Maybe Longstreet does not want to get his hands dirty first, but I think he would when the time came and when his army was in a better position.
I do think you are right on with Chamberlain. His ability to take risks even at his own expense, but still to be able recognize what is the right way to approach a battle makes him a truly effective leader--and probably better than Lee and Longstreet.
And, I think being open mindedness is important for succesful leadership. We have a real life example of powerful and smart leadership effective yesterday with President Obama. He brought different people into his cabinet with somewhat different views on national and international issues. This is why, I hope, Obama's presidency will prove to be successful.
I agree that Chamberlain seems to be the best mix between Lee and Longstreet. I agree with Scott that Longstreet is not trying to protect certain individuals over the entire army but is rather thinking of the best way to defend them entirely. I also agree that a good leader must have a balance of logic and risk. The leader must be able to take what information is given to them and decide from there. But when they are given limited information but have faith in their men, they must also be willing to take the ultimate risk, their life and the lives of their soldiers
Paulie, love the ending. I think you hit the nail on the end with the closing paragraph where you state that a leader really needs to have balance. Frankly, I think that is the reason Shaara chose these three characters. If we would combine Lee's ability to attract others, Longstreet's ideas on defense and attack, and Chamberlin's thoughtfulness and quick mind, we would have the perfect leader. Perhaps rather than comparing each leader we need to recognize each good quality a leader has and try to interpret the reason behind their qualities and their subsequent success.
i agree with most of the other people who have commented on this; you're fairly accurate with your reasoning behind Chamberlain's success as a leader. i also agree that he is the best of the three, but i think it's important to remember that each one has his own faults. Lee may be too free with the lives of his men, but he is decisive and willing to act. Longstreet may be too hesitant, but he thinks in terms of his army and his soldiers. Chamberlain is decisive when necessary but considerate of life when possible; however, Chamberlain does seem to think a whole lot more than the average commander. i think that is his vice as a leader; thought is important, but in the heat of battle it is not necessarily the best quality.
You say that a leader must have a balance of killer and angel. I think what you meant was that a good leader must have a balance between killer and angel. I believe that if you look at some of the bad leaders throughout history they are either too one-sided (meaning either they possessed too much angel or killer in them). If they possessed too much angel then they were probably too weak. If they possessed too much killer then they probably failed due to their lack of interest in their own men.
There is one thing I have to point out, it has come up in several of the blogs and has bothered me to an extent. Everyone phrases it as if Chamberlain singled out his brother and sent him specifically to fill the hole in the line. In reality (in the book may be a better term), Chamberlain sees a hole in the line and instinctively grabs the nearest man and sends him to fill it. He doesn't realize that it is his own brother until after he has already sent him on his way and it is then, at the point of realization, that he starts to think of what he will tell his mother and such. Just a little point that I think needed clearing up.
I really liked your last sentence that a leader must have an equal amount of killer as well as angel. Chamberlain is that person. He is willing to think things through as well as kill. Maybe since Chamberlain was a professor and did not study warfare all the time he was able to be both a killer and angel. The idea that he was an educated man and could think things through was his angel part. On the other hand, he is an ordinary man. Not a world class general or president, just a man and in war he is fighting to survive. He is on the front lines with his men, just another body, not a general, just a man fighting to stay alive and there is his killer part. Chamberlain is a killer angel because he is just an ordinary man fighting to stay alive.
Post a Comment