06-24-2014, 04:24 PM
During the latter half of the 20th century, corporate leadership lessons and techniques became ingrained into in the British and American militaries when senior officers attended business schools to learn new methods of productivity. This is hardly a little known fact. Therefore, whatever training military servicemen or women, officer or enlisted, received in leadership, command, and management since that time have been tainted by these lessons. Go read a book written by military leaders from WWI or before and you'll probably not even see the word "manage" used in the context it is today. Other corporate methods, such as micromanagement, common today among military leaders, were also not used then. There are plenty of other examples of a changing methods of leadership. Levels of responsibilities, duties, the very roles of leaders have changed immensely in the last century because of these new approaches. The very idea of "managing" people like some corporate drone would probably sicken officers of the 19th century and before. Did Henry V manage or command his people in battle when he led from the front ranks of his battle line at Agincourt? Was that propaganda? What about the thousands of other examples of officers leading from the front throughout history? Of near suicidal heroics and bravery of fighting men in battle? Propaganda? Are the reports of Victorian Cross and Medal of Honor awardees from the current wars propaganda too?
It is my categorical belief that just because someone learned a leadership/command/management technique in the 1980s at some British army officer school does not mean Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa or Caesar, let alone some Roman Plebian of the 2nd Class, knew of it or even would have agreed with the methods. The Romans were a completely different culture then ours, separated by two thousand years. They were raised differently, thought differently, acted differently. They regularly massacred entire populations, enslaved entire tribes, killed their girl children when they didn't want to raise them. They beat soldiers to death for sleeping on duty, decimated entire units for not performing to snuff in battle. They sacrificed people by burying them in the ground when they lost a battle. They were not like us so there is no reason to continuously compare their tactics with something created and taught in the 20th century.
Overall, I don't think everything in the ancient sources that promotes something you disagree with is propaganda. I highly recommend before anyone else forms a hardened opinion on the subject, that they actually read Ross Cowan's and J.E. Lendon's books I'd mentioned earlier. They're quite good and full of historical references. Cowan is even a poster in the forum (or at least had been). Read those two books and then come back into the discussion.
Until then, Vale.
It is my categorical belief that just because someone learned a leadership/command/management technique in the 1980s at some British army officer school does not mean Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa or Caesar, let alone some Roman Plebian of the 2nd Class, knew of it or even would have agreed with the methods. The Romans were a completely different culture then ours, separated by two thousand years. They were raised differently, thought differently, acted differently. They regularly massacred entire populations, enslaved entire tribes, killed their girl children when they didn't want to raise them. They beat soldiers to death for sleeping on duty, decimated entire units for not performing to snuff in battle. They sacrificed people by burying them in the ground when they lost a battle. They were not like us so there is no reason to continuously compare their tactics with something created and taught in the 20th century.
Overall, I don't think everything in the ancient sources that promotes something you disagree with is propaganda. I highly recommend before anyone else forms a hardened opinion on the subject, that they actually read Ross Cowan's and J.E. Lendon's books I'd mentioned earlier. They're quite good and full of historical references. Cowan is even a poster in the forum (or at least had been). Read those two books and then come back into the discussion.
Until then, Vale.
