1. Leaders in history
2. what makes a leader?
3. About followers

Leaders in history

Where does leadership start? The truth is that the leaders history has recognised were also followers. For my part I am a follower in the spiritual (Ivan Ilyin) and poetic (Edgar Poe) domains, and many more! There I recognise my limitations, and also the fact that many great human beings have preceded me, and led the way. I am follower in so many subjects: maths (Galois), science, much of what I understand of scientific revolutions I owe to Thomas Kuhn, literature, I am still very much stuck somewhere near Parma, thanks to Stendhal, etc.

Where do I lead? On my patch, like most people. In the family I am approaching the role of patriarch, except I am not. My friends are now fewer and older. Much of my communication is now with people close by, and almost as old as me! So this leaves what matters, what I can teach my grandchildren, or at least invite them to learn. Long ago, as an officer, I learned that only example matters, whatever the cost. I am still trying, modestly, to apply this maxim.

what makes a leader?

But what makes a leader? What are leaders made of? Can we recognise them? Is leadership real or mythical? Let’s takes an example, or perhaps more than one. Napoleon Bonaparte: the young general, of Egypt and Italy military fame, was in fact a puppet of some of the conventioneers (members of the last revolutionary assembly), particularly Siéyès. As shown by Malaparte (“Technique du coup d’État, 1966) the 18 Brumaire (1797) was almost a complete fiasco, with a reluctant Bonaparte, uncertain troopers, and would have been a flop with Sieyes’ presence and determination. Later Talleyrand would play the same role when the future emperor wobbled.

The objective for the “acquéreurs de biens nationaux”, the new class of profiteers from the plunder of the Church properties, and the future political oligarchy of the post-napoleonic France, was to consolidate their loot and power, occasionally murdering the weak monarchic opposition (murder of the duke of Enghien) and fighting off a too blatant counterrevolution inspired by Austria and, of course England. It worked for a while, but soon after the much inflated victories of Austerlitz and the Prussian campaign, the bubble deflated with the final absurd Russian invasion (despite the precedents, and with the obligatory follow up of Barbarossa in 1941).

Going back to the morning of the 18 Brumaire, Malaparte writes: “Encore quelques formalités, et le coup est fait. Son optimisme (that of Bonaparte) révèle à quel point il est mal à sa place dans ce jeu dangereux. Le jour suivant , le 19 Brumaire, à Saint-Cloud, quand Siéyès lui-même s’aperçoit des erreurs commises et commence à avoir peur, Bonaparte continue à montrer un tel optimisme, une telle confiance en son prestige, un tel mépris pour les “avocats” du Corps Législatif, que Talleyrand ne sait s’il doit le juger naïf ou inconscient.”

[A few more formalities and the job is done. Bonaparte’s optimism shows to what extent he is out of place in this dangerous game. The following day, 19 Brumaire, in Saint-Cloud, as Siéyès himself becomes aware of the mistakes made and starts being afraid, Bonaparte shows still the same optimism and confidence in his glory, the same contempt for the lawyers of the Assembly, that Talleyrand  cannot decide if their general is naive, or unconscious.]

The disastrous end of the empire, the equally disastrous restoration shows to what extent the napoleonic leadership was in fact, at least in part, a myth, entertained by sycophants and ill-advised historians. This became useful to the same oligarchs when time came to recycle the myth in favour of Napoleon III, a faint shadow of the great man, whose own predicament came in Sedan, at the hands of the real Prussian army.

Adolf Hitler, much admired by the young ladies of the English aristocracy in the 30’s, was described as an idiot by Oswald Spengler, who knew more than a little about leadership, after a lengthy meeting. Ludendorff himself warned Hindenburg as the latter was about to appoint Hitler chancellor in 1933, that he (Hitler) was a lunatic.

About followers

So much for leaders. Malaparte has a lot to say about the so-called Bolshevik “revolution”, in fact a coup d’état that succeeded only in part thanks to the support of the City of London and the Rothchilds party.

Spectacle is the usual backdrop of great “leaders”. But how about followers then? Well, followers may have to start leading, when everything else fails. So was it for Sepp Dietrich in 1945, when he showed the Allies in the Ardennes what the real German army could still do, without much petrol and a handful of tanks. But then Karkhov and Kursk were the crucible of that generation. Still is, in the East.

Leading from the front, leading by example, one can meditates on whether real leaders become, rather than are born.

Picture: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-J28625 / CC-BY-SA 3.0