We shall begin by studying Henry V and Agincourt, as Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute and her husband, Ken (former US ambassador to the UN and director of the U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency) have done.
In October 1415 Henry and his army had been in France for two months and his 12,000 strong army was reduced to maybe 6,000. The French army of about 60,000 expected to annihilate them. His tactics were crucial. He chose a narrow battle ground flanked by woods so the French could not overwhelm him on such a narrow front. He equipped his men with pikes a foot longer than the French used, giving a deadly advantage in hand to hand combat. He replaced crossbows with long bows that have a longer range and drilled his men so that they could fire them rapidly. I’m reminded of Jack Aubrey’s insistence on frequent gun practice in Patrick O’Brian’s novels. He planted protective stakes in the ground in front of his army. Nevertheless numerical superiority and mounted troops in armour should have prevailed over a small and exhausted British army on foreign soil.
Henry’s army might have lost their nerve and fled into the woods; that they didn’t is because of the king’s leadership skills. What we know of them is highly coloured by Shakespeare who wrote a speech still used to inspire soldiers today. (See Video of Laurence Olivier in Henry V at the end of this post.) The king moved easily among his troops inspiring them with his confidence and motivating them to fight together as a team – a band of brothers.
“Henry painted a vision of what success looked like,” said Ken Adelman. “He spoke of God, and never mentioned the word ‘defeat.’ He talked about children being proud of their fathers who fought in this battle. He said ‘we are a band of brothers’ and he is one of them. He connected to the mission and to the people.”
Ken Adelman again: “In my experience, this is the only way to go if you want to make a big change in your organization. You have to meet with all the interested parties before hand and get them behind you. You have to meet the specific interests of different groups before you can align the group behind the big goal.” It wasn’t all oratory; Henry leads by example and is ruthless when necessary. In the play his friend, Bardolph, deserts and steals a church chalice. Henry has him hanged.
Our view of Henry is highly coloured by Shakespeare but in the 20th century there is ample evidence to examine three great wartime leaders: Patton Montgomery and Rommel. Lloyd Clark teaches Modern War Studies and Contemporary Military History at the University of Buckingham and this is what he does in The Commanders. They have much in common. They are fiercely ambitious, hard working, inconsiderate of the feelings of others, brave to the point of foolhardiness, arrogant and selfish. They antagonised their contemporaries and their superiors. But like Henry they inspired their troops to unquestioning courage and deeds of which they might have thought themselves incapable. They were superb leaders of little use in peace time but in their element in battle.
Patton and Montgomery got the job done but were psychologically flawed and detestable. They and Rommel achieved cult status in their armies and became mascots of military success. Interestingly all three had dogs; Patton a bull terrier, Monty a Jack Russell and a spaniel, Rommel a daschund. They may have given them the affection lacking in their lives – at least for Patton and Monty.
“Even as each man remains a controversial figure to this day, their achievements as leaders were undeniably remarkable. Often at their best when against the odds, under immense pressure and in the destabilising presence of chaos and confusion, Patton, Montgomery and Rommel cut through the complexity, did not shirk from their responsibilities, applied sound judgement, made a decision and provided leadership. On balance, therefore, it is hard to disagree with Field Marshall The Lord Bramall’s assessment of the three officers: ‘Looking back on their accomplishments across decades of service it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that their leadership was a triumph’. “ (The Commanders, Lloyd Clark)