Military Leadership Analysis Paper Example

Napoleon’s rise to fame is truly inspirational as he was able to make his way up the ranks based on sheer intellect and hard work. He was an excellent strategist, deeply studied of military knowledge at various military strategies used in actual combats. He especially advocates focus on the use of the artillery, and gives full play to the motor role of the cavalry. In fact, whether strategies or tactics, Napoleon had not created any new ideas, while he himself had certainly not been this self-proclaimed.

If he ever so, he may be able to make the forces not repeatedly suffer heavy losses, until its final battle. But his guidance for the war was indeed a master. He was regarded as the best craftsman in the industry, and he knew how to make the most effective use of the hands-off-the-shelf tools and techniques, though not necessarily the most economical. What is more, Napoleon Bonaparte was a man with strong morals. He believed that a man should be helped, no matter what nationality.

In May 1812, Napoleon led the army of 570,000 in 12 languages to invade Russia. A story is told that once after a battle, Napoleon came upon a dying soldier. After he called for a stretcher, his aide remarked that he was “only a Russian. ” Napoleon responded with one of the most respectable phrases in history: “After a victory there are not enemies. Only men. ” Another character of Bonaparte’s leadership is the reward he set, so-called Legion d’honneur (The Legion of Honor).

The baubles to which Napoleon referred were the badges and ribbons of the Legion d’honneur. Created by him in 1802, the order was awarded without regard to rank and thus intended to inspire and motivate his soldier by appealing to their sentiments of ambition and pride. Still in existence today, it exemplifies Napoleon’s greatest contribution to the art of modern military leadership–the democratization of honor.

The bauble was the most visible of a range of initiatives Napoleon introduced to forge a previously unprecedented bond between his armies and himself. Napoleon encouraged a real sense of camaraderie between himself and his men. The soldiers of his Grande Armee (French for “Great Army” or “Grand Army”) came to feel deep affection for the general they called their “Little Corporal”–a nickname that itself testifies to the democratic bond forged between Napoleon and his men, also reflected Napoleon’s bravery.

Far from taking umbrage at the moniker, Napoleon appreciated it, as it advanced his overall leadership strategy. To further fortify the connection between himself and his men, Napoleon visited the soldiers by their campfires (most famously, on the eve of Austerlitz), chatting with them about home and expressing his confidence they would do well the following day. He made an effort to memorize the names of his men and address them by a smile on the face (Blaufarb, 2012). Another story also reflected Napoleon’s influence of his inspiration.

In a combat with the enemy, Napoleon met with stubborn resistance, not only the team losses, and he accidentally fallen into the quagmire, covered with mud, and the situation is very dangerous. Napoleon totally disregarded the situation, holding the belief that he must win the battle of the firm, climbed out of the quagmire of screaming on “Charge! ” His soldiers saw him askew comical, could not help laughing, but also encouraged by the optimistic self-confidence of Napoleon.

For a time, the soldiers feeling ran high, fought at the head, finally achieved the final victory of the battle. It is concluded that whether in any critical situation, the leader should maintain a positive state. Especially as a manager, your self-confidence can infect your employees. Whether have optimistic and confident attitude directly affect the success or failure of a transaction. If a business manager can successfully motivate each employee that risking his own life and then ‘one after another’, the company will be invincible.