The Need for Organisational Resilience Chapter 5

knowledge may be limited, but it should be thorough, and he should be perfectly grounded in the

principles at the base of the art of war. Next in importance come the qualities of his personal

character. A man who is gallant, just, firm, upright, capable of esteeming merit in others instead of

being jealous of it, and skilful in making their merit contributory to his own glory, will always be a good

general, and may even pass for a great man. Unfortunately, the disposition to give credit to merit in

others is not a common quality: mediocre minds are always jealous, and inclined to surround

themselves with persons of little ability, fearing that they will be perceived as followers and not

leaders, and not realizing that the designated commander of an army always receives almost all the

glory of its success, even when least entitled to it.

The question has often been discussed, whether it is preferable to assign command to a general

with long experience in service with troops, or to a staff officer who, usually, has little experience in

the management of troops. It is beyond question that war is a distinct science of itself, and that it is

quite possible to combine operations skilfully without ever having led a regiment against an enemy.

Peter the Great, Condé, Frederick, and Napoleon are instances of this. It cannot, then, be denied that

a staff officer may, as easily as any other, prove to be a great general, but it will not because he has

grown gray in the duties of a quartermaster that he is capable of the supreme command, but because

he has a natural genius for war and possesses the requisite characteristics. So, also, a general from

the ranks of the infantry or cavalry may be as capable of conducting a campaign as the most profound

tactician. So this question does not admit of a definite affirmative or negative answer, since almost

everything depends upon the personal qualities of individuals; but the following remarks will be useful

in reaching a rational conclusion:

1. A general, selected from general staff, engineers, or artillery, who has commanded a division

or a corps d’armée, will, all other things being equal, be superior to one who is familiar with

the service of only one arm or special corps.

2. A general from the line, who has made a study of the science of war, will be equally fitted for

command.

8 | P a g e