back to top
|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.