At least that's what this "What Military Leader Are You?" quiz says. And that's cool, because TR is one of my favorite real-world heroes.
I ended up being George Patton! I really thought my leadership style would more match that of Hafeem al Shakir el kazeema al suda zaukena. Go figure.....
I'm SPARTACUS..... I'm Spartacus.......I'm Spartacus.......I'm Spartacus I'm Spartacus....I'm Spartacus.......etc. etc.
I gotta wonder...if I were Muad, I don't know if I'd take this. Can you imagine if he did and it told him he was US Grant? Or--God forbid--Sherman!?
Question #1: I picked Choice #2. That's why HQ exists. Question #2: I picked Choice #2. We've already established that I have competent officers and crack troops, but intelligence is shitty. So, I come up with a basic plan, I write general and loose orders, and trust my subordinates to carry them out to the best of their ability while leaving them room to maneuver and change tactics as they see fit. Question #3: I picked Choice #2. While leading from the front is very, very brave, it's not always the smart tactical move for the commander of large units. The tactical situation will change as I'm meeting all the different units and traveling between them. One commander can't be in three places at once, but three riders can be. Question #4: I picked "Fight on until the enemy is dead, they surrender unconditionally, or they flee the field of battle." Since that option didn't exist on the test, I had to go with the closest thing and that is Choice #2. War is hell. You can not enter into it planning only half measures. Of course, that means that I line up with: Ulysses S. Grant Please pardon me while I go kill myself.
I had the same choices as Elwood, except for the last. Could be biased, but destroying the enemy doesn't always win the war. Could just spring up an insurgency. Better to leave the enemy force intact and with its honor, the people not dead set against you (stay away from religious sites) and then use your former opponent as police.
I'm so ashamed - I wound up with Sherman. Can't argue with success (much) even if he was on the wrong side.
I had a critique all typed up, based on Elwood's post--what I thought the "textbook" doctrinal responses would be, from a USMC perspective. But I don't want this to be a pissing match and it seemed a mite egotistical on my part. But... I will say I had the same response to the final question as E (the Unconditional Surrender Option), but since that wasn't listed I picked the Negotiate Yourself option. That was really a coin-toss and I almost went back and changed it. So just now, for laughs I went back and changed it. This time I got John Paul Jones. I can live with that--TR or John Paul Jones.
You really don't get the point of total war. They can start an insurgency, sure. But you're going to starve/kill their people until they can't or won't fight anymore.
