The other night at work we had what I call a "rah, rah" meeting. It was supposed to be a team building exercises. The manager, who BTW isn't a great leader, asked what qualities make a great leader. We had to throw out items, like decisiveness, energy, etc. She then said that most people think it takes Attitude, Skill, Knowledge, and we were supposed to assign the various attributes to each are. Attitude had the most, skill the next, knowledge the last.

Anyway she asked us to think of people who were great leaders, and I was thinking of Napoleon. What was it about him that made him a great leader? His men would follow him anywhere, and old soldiers would be seen crying at a bad look from him.

I'm not really sure of my own answer to this one, so I'm interested in seeing what you all come with?

I think it was his ambition and drive that made him a great leader. Also his camaraderie with his men and the fact that he knew many of them by name.

He gained the respect and trust of his men and that itself makes him a great leader.

Regards

Jamie

Hello Rodger,

For me the reason why Napoleon was a great leader is that he was very close to his soldiers, on the battlefield, sleeping close to them in the camp, encouraging them etc..Napoleon knew what his soldiers have suffered.He proved his courage in several battle (Toulon, Arcole bridge, takinf the lead of his men) as a simple general when he was 26. He earn several spectacular victories in Italy and Egypt also.

Beside that, I think he reached the top for other reasons also :

The second reason is that guy is a pure product of the french revolution (funny when you know he constitutes an empire..), starting from a very poor family of Corsicans, went to military school and then integrated the artillery corp and then became emperor. The exact opposite of what were Kings and courtisans.This guy start from nothing and became the leader of half the europe, by his own will.

The third reason is he arrived at the right time, when Revolutionary France was attacked by all her neighbourghs, in a difficult situation because the army lack of rifles, guns, ships, etc and France needs a strong man coming from military field to restore peace (in a certain way..)

Finally, from a non military point of view, he did great things for France, creating most of the present institutions in France today, organized French administration, and made writting by famous lawyer the French civil code which has been duplicated in several countries (the main ennemy of the common law theory in the world), and many other things for which French are thankful even today.

This is my point of view. But some may tell Napoleon was a monster who sent to death millions of Frenchmen, but the reality was a desire of peace, but it was too late and the alliance couldn't have let him go..

Best,
Julien

To quote Napoleon: " It is through baubles that mankind is governed." I always felt that summed it up rather well. That, and the fact that he could visualize the unfolding of a battle and anticipate each move to the extent that he could directly influence the flow. (despite Connelly's (Blundering into Glory) rejection of that argument)

Oddly enough, a friend gave me a copy of the March 2007 issue of Arm Chair General. On page 34 is a great article covering Napolean on Leadership. Basically Napolean placed his greatest value on the human element - the people under him.
Napolean knew the value of technology but knew that "in the long run the sword is beaten by the mind".
Napolean gave his men the freedom to make tactical decisions and encouraged people to speak up: "Ten people who speak make more noise than 10,000 who are silent".

Unfortunately in most organizations it's usually "shoot the messenger" if the leader does like what he/she is hearing whether it is right or wrong.

The answer to this one Halfyank, is easy....

Napoleon was an Artillery man.

But on a more serious note, what Wing Tzun said is right. Napoleon gave great trust and responsibility to his men. Unlike the British System at the time, where so called "aristocrats" were promoted because of social status or who their family was, Napoleon promoted from the ranks.

I believe Napoleon was a great leader because he recognised ability. If you were capable and proved your capabilities over time, then you were recognised and promoted. As Napoleon himself had to do. For example Napoleons’ great quote “Every man carries a Field Marshals Baton in his ruck sack" or words to that effect. I don’t think he used ruck sack....but you know what I mean.

I think there are some good answers here. One thing, I do want to distinguish between being a good general, as far as tactics and strategy and such, and being a good leader. Napoleon, it seems, was both, though not all generals can say that. I think the biggest issue with Nappy's leadership is his care of his men. He originally got the nickname The Little Corporal by the efforts he took to feed, clothe, and generally take care of his troops. This is a little hard to reconcile with Boney's statement on the lines of "what does a man like me care about the lives of a million men?" I guess that Napoleon was cold blooded enough that he could care for his troops so that they would be in fit state to fight, and would follow him, but not care about throwing their lives away in battle.

What made Napoleon a good leader,

IMHO is his success in the early stages of his career (due to his own abilities and the mistakes of his opponents)... people easily follow a winner. In this he was aided by his own strategic and tactical abilities, the army reforms and the after-effects of the French Revolution (nationalism and the " levee en masse").

By the time his opponents did catch up on the organizational aspects, things already got a lot harder for him. And because of his enormous reputation, basically as " the man who had saved France" and later as "the man who brought glory to France" he was able to overcome the setbacks he suffered (Egypt, Russia and even Leipzig).

Napoleon quickly was able to create a myth around himself, and that made things a whole lot easier for him. And he was able to sustain his success with some spectacular victories, even if he was not the main man responsible (Jena und Auerstaedt). This myth also made it harder for the opponents (who later in the 1813 campaign made it a point to avoid any battle where Napoleon was in command, purely because of the spychological effects on the men) to face him. A similar effect had Rommel in North Africa.

I totally agree with the dutchy !
The Napoleon myth surely help Napoleon to win battle, as enemies feared him, and Napoleon presence galvanized french troops.
One must not forget napoleon did excellent things on a civil point of view, in economy, legal and social, which helped to get french praised Napoleon genius.
the first point remind me a book I'm reading on Dien Bien Phu battle from Erwan Bergot (who participed to this battle). He said north african troops, "tiralleurs marocains or algériens", believe Allah were on their side, because french have better equipement sand won some battles in the first years of the conflict. But from the moment their french squad leader was shot, squad leader in which Allah put his trust (don't know how to exactely translate the correct idea), North African tought Allah has changed side, and then prefered withdrawing rather than struggling (I have to say not all tirailleurs did that, some of them, particularly the ones who made Italian campaigns during ww2, have stood and fought until death for a one ten meter piece of the battlefield).
My 2 dinahrs thoughts.

Best,
Julien