Introduction
According to the analytical framework, a Great Captain is a complex notion consisting of three primary elements: Leader in Battle, Master of the Art of War, and Military Genius. In the course of military history, only a few individuals could be rightfully considered Great Captains due to the extensive prerequisites of the title. Intellect, creativity, experience, courage, and morality are only some of the necessary factors that imply the greatness of a military commander. However, experts suggest that a Great Captain is not equal to a Great Military Leader in the age of nuclear weapons, and careful risk management has become more relevant than ever (Keegan 1988, 77). Thus, the current paper suggests that the focus figure – Douglas MacArthur – was a Great Military Leader but not necessarily a Great Captain.
Many experts believe that Alexander the Great and Frederick the Great are some of the most notable Great Captains of all time. From these considerations, the current research thoroughly investigates the qualities and competencies of the two commanders to determine the validity of the Great Captain analytical framework. Consequently, the study examines MacArthur’s military achievements and proves that he was indeed a Great Military Leader. Lastly, the current paper argues that despite MacArthur’s accomplishments and leadership qualities, Douglas MacArthur cannot be considered a Great Captain according to the analytical framework and, thus, should not be called “MacArthur the Great.”
Assessment of Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great was the most successful commander of the ancient wars in Northeastern Africa and Western Asia and is one of the most well-known generals in military history. As described by John Keegan (1988, 77), Alexander the Great demonstrated all qualities of a heroic leader, with recklessness, passion, and courage being the most valuable characteristics. These leadership competencies supported soldiers’ high morale, and Alexander the Great continually proved his worth to his followers both in battle and in his political prowess. This type of leading was particularly vital in ancient wars when the people perceived the commanders primarily via their actions on the battlefield. Thus, according to the analytical framework, Alexander the Great satisfied the element of Leading in Battle since he was able to “touch and turn the souls of followers.”
Consequently, Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a highly talented strategist that had a military mindset ahead of his time. During the conquests in Asia Minor and Egypt, the commander demonstrated unique warfare tactics with a focus on rapid advancement and the element of surprise (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 28). Despite the lack of direct warfare experience during his earlier conquests, Alexander the Great advanced with confidence and secured the decisive victory at the battle of Issus (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 27). Their proficiency in the aspects of Master of Art of War and Military Genius allowed Alexander the Great to overcome the overwhelming odds and create the largest empire of the time in the course of his short life.
Some experts emphasize the role of upbringing and ancestry in the successful career of Alexander the Great, and it is partially true. Alexander’s mother – Olympias – was the daughter of King Neoptolemus, and Alexander learned a lot about politics and religion in his early years (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 4). Furthermore, he received the best possible education at the time, being mentored by Aristotle in philosophy and by the finest instructors, including Leonidas, in combat (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 5). As a result, he became an intelligent man and an excellent combatant, and the role of education should never be underestimated. However, even his teachers were surprised by Alexander’s military thinking and courage, predicting that he would someday conquer the world (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 9). Thus, Alexander the Great demonstrated unique competencies from early childhood.
Furthermore, Aristotle’s lessons on philosophy, religion, politics, and the responsibility of kings had an immense impact on Alexander’s future style of leadership. Alexander had a deep understanding of his fellow soldiers, the importance of religion, and the power of politics. In the conquered lands, the commander demonstrated courtesy, allowing people to retain their religious beliefs, languages, and values, with the only exception of Persepolis, which was entirely destroyed and plundered (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 31). Thus, Alexander the Great undoubtedly found comfort in warfare and conquests; however, as many experts argue, he strived not for power but for heroic fame (Kets de Vries and Engellau 2004, 82). From these considerations, he did not oppress the conquered peoples, allowing them to continue their traditions. As seen from the analysis, Alexander the Great satisfied all three elements of a Great Captain and a great man.
Assessment of Frederick the Great
For the sake of the current work, it is also essential to thoroughly evaluate the competencies and qualities of Frederick the Great to determine whether he could be considered a Great Captain. Frederick’s leadership style, military strategies, and objectives differed vastly from the exemplary warfare set by Alexander the Great. While heroic leadership was still essential in the war of the 18th century, many experts believe that Fredrick never had such qualities while maintaining a heroic appearance only for the sake of the army’s morale (Showalter 2012, 7). However, despite the differences from Alexander, Frederick the Great is still perceived as a great military commander, and there are several primary reasons for such evaluation.
First, while Frederick did not have the same combat prowess as Great Captains before him, he compensated for it with intelligence and a deep understanding of psychology. He understood the significance of the commander’s charisma and leadership in battles and was able to persuade his soldiers that “The Old Fritz” or Der Alte Fritz was a great commander who would lead them to success (Showalter 2012, 8). Thus, compensating for the lack of personal leadership with a powerful persona, Frederick the Great inspired his soldiers no less than other Great Captains before him (Showalter 2012, 9). Furthermore, he always maintained the persona of the Old Fritz on the battlefield as he marched together with his army in many wars throughout his extensive reign from 1740 to 1786 (Showalter 2012, 9). Frederick ensured that soldiers perceived him as one of them to develop a more personal relationship with the army and inspire them with his presence. As a result, Frederick the Great mastered the competencies of a Leader in Battle and Master of the Art of War, albeit in a different way compared to Alexander.
Consequently, Frederick’s military achievements are definitive evidence of his proficiency in the element of Military Genius. He led his army to numerous decisive victories in the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years’ War, despite being outnumbered and maintaining less advantageous positions. When Frederick became the King of Prussia in 1740, he decided to strengthen the position of the nation, invading Silesia and initiating the First Silesian War (Showalter 2012, 54). Frederick, being only 28 years old at the time and without significant military experience, was able to quickly occupy the region and maintain the high morale of the troops (Showalter 2012, 54). Furthermore, he achieved great success while minimizing bloodshed and human losses from both sides, which demonstrates his, as argued by many experts, distaste for brutality (Showalter 2012, 55). Thus, his initial military campaigns portrayed him as a talented military commander.
However, the later battles, specifically at Rossbach and Leuthen, engraved his name as one of the greatest generals of all time. During the Seven Year’s War, Frederick the Great frequently encountered overwhelming odds with little chance of victory. At the battle of Rossbach, Frederick secured a decisive victory, despite having only 25,000 soldiers as opposed to 50,000 French troops (Showalter 2012, 214). Consequently, in Leuthen, Frederick used intelligent tactics to outmaneuver the Austrian forces by taking advantage of the terrain (Showalter 2012, 221). As a result, the battle ended with the decisive victory of the Prussian troops and became one of the causes of Frederick’s consequent popularity and legacy in military history. Ultimately, Frederick’s military achievements prove the competency of Military Genius, while his leadership mindset implies the proficiency in the elements of Leader in Battle and Master of the Art of War.
Validity of Great Captain Definition, The analytical framework of a Great Captain, suggests that the three fundamental elements, including Leader in Battle, Master of the Art of War, and Military Genius, are necessary prerequisites for the title. As seen from the analysis of the two commanders, their military talent was multifaceted, with emphasis on different competencies. Nevertheless, while utilizing various means, they both demonstrated effective leadership styles, functional tactics, and a deep understanding of the principles of war. As a result, it is safe to assume that Alexander and Frederick satisfied all three components of a Great Captain definition and are rightfully deemed, Great Captains. Therefore, the proposed analytical framework is valid and is a substantial base for determining whether a Great Military Leader can be considered a Great Captain.
Furthermore, Alexander and Frederick emphasized the heroic image and leadership by example. As mentioned in the introduction, in contemporary warfare, these characteristics may be detrimental to the campaign’s overall success and the commander’s reputation. After all, access to nuclear weapons demands careful decision-making with no room for mistakes. However, at the time of Alexander and, consequently, Frederick, people needed to see their general in front of them to believe in the righteousness of the cause. As a result, the unique leadership styles of the two generals brought them fame, success, and admiration from their soldiers and ordinary people. It had an immense impact on their perception and role in military history, attributing to the image of a Great Captain. Ultimately, they were excellent leaders, and outstanding tacticians, knew how to boost the soldiers’ morale, and were deemed “great” by the people.
Assessment of Douglas MacArthur
Finally, it is essential to analyze Douglas MacArthur from the perspectives of the Great Military Leader and Great Captain frameworks. Similar to previously described generals, MacArthur was a highly versatile commander who played a vital part in the national military campaigns. Throughout his extensive career, MacArthur participated in both World Wars, the occupation of Japan, and operations in Korea. William Manchester (1978, 1) wrote a book about MacArthur, referring to him as American Caesar, implying that Douglas MacArthur was the greatest soldier in American history. While MacArthur’s accomplishments are universally acknowledged, some experts provide a more neutral narrative about his classification as the American greatest commander (Perret 1996, 587). Therefore, it is essential to thoroughly analyze MacArthur’s military career to determine whether he can be rightfully considered a Great Captain.
Douglas MacArthur was one of the most successful generals in American military history and, undoubtedly, a Great Military Leader. He first demonstrated his potential during World War I, when he was rapidly advancing his military career due to his achievements in France (Manchester 1978, 56). In World War II, MacArthur became the American symbol of heroism while participating in the Philippines and New Guinea Campaigns, for which he was awarded multiple rewards, including the Congressional Medal of Honor (Manchester 1978, 10). In 1944, MacArthur initiated a rapid advance in Hollandia, surprising the Japanese forces and securing a decisive victory against the odds (Manchester 1978, 2019). Ultimately, MacArthur played a vital part in World War II; however, his most notable achievements concerned the later parts of his life.
After World War II, MacArthur acted as a Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and established a new political regime in Japan. During the period of 1945-1950, MacArthur and his team westernized Imperial Japan, allowing women to vote and transforming various policies, but retained its cultural traditions (Manchester 1978, 10). This stage of MacArthur’s life characterized him as a highly intelligent leader, and Manchester (1978, 16) compared MacArthur to Napoleon during this period. Consequently, during the Korean War, he demonstrated strategic brilliance, making even skeptical historians recognize MacArthur’s vast military talent. Ultimately, the mentioned operations prove MacArthur’s title of a Great Military Leader and his competencies as a Military Genius and Master of the Art of War.
MacArthur as a Great Captain
According to the analytical framework, MacArthur’s most ambiguous trait is Leader in Battle. The American commander demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities during most of his military campaigns and showed genuine concern for his fellow soldiers. At the end of the military campaign in France in World War I, MacArthur proudly praised his infantry regiment by stating, “Is it any wonder that my father was proud of this regiment?” (Manchester 1978, 59). Even though some experts argue for MacArthur’s shallowness and hypocrisy, he could maximize the effectiveness of his troops with his speeches and heroic attitude. However, he also believed in the replaceability of soldiers and demonstrated furious neglect of his troops in times of uncertainty or insubordination (Manchester 1978, 62). One of his quotes was, “Well, there are times when even general officers have to be expendable” (Manchester 1978, 62). As a result, many experts recognize MacArthur’s leadership style as contradicting, conflicting, or ambiguous when the moments of brilliance might quickly turn into strategic disasters.
Consequently, MacArthur’s personality is one of the reasons why it is difficult to consider him a Great Captain of the same caliber as Alexander or Frederick. Mark Perry (2014, 1) named the biographic book about MacArthur “The Most Dangerous Man in America,” referring to many insubordination episodes and the unpredictable character of the commander. Many historians, including Geoffrey Perret, agree that MacArthur had a complicated personality while frequently describing him as an egoist with an immense degree of narcissism. At the time of the Great Depression, MacArthur was also continually bashed for his political views, deteriorating his image and reputation (Perry 2014, 15). Roosevelt depicted his ambiguous character with the following passage, “He never doubts and never argues or suggests; he makes pronouncements. What he thinks is final. Besides, he’s intelligent, a brilliant soldier like his father before him” (Perry 2014, 16). Thus, a complicated personality was one of MacArthur’s most detrimental aspects and led to poor decision-making on several occasions.
Furthermore, despite their numerous military talents and competencies, MacArthur was somewhat bleak in terms of “greatness.” Alexander and Frederick were the national leaders who vastly expanded their empires, won battles at overwhelming odds, and maintained a heroic image. Even though the scale of warfare was much smaller than in the 20th century, the commanders went into the battles together with their armies, which positively impacted their reputation as great leaders. They were highly prominent in arts, culture, and politics, covering almost all areas that could potentially be perceived by the public as “greatness.” On the other hand, while not underestimating MacArthur’s military achievements, his scope of influence was much smaller, and his early political decisions created a huge backlash from the public (Perry 2014, 15). Furthermore, he had a significant impact primarily on American and Japanese military histories, while Alexander and Frederick factually shaped the Western history of their generations and are well-known in the whole world.
Conclusion
Drawing conclusions in regard to great military commanders is always a complicated and subjective task; however, the current paper has argued that Douglas MacArthur, although a Great Military Leader, was not a Great Captain. The reasoning for this judgment includes MacArthur’s multiple episodes of insubordination and complicated personality, which occasionally led to failing his fellow soldiers. MacArthur was willing to take risks in military operations for most of his career, and most of them were highly successful and explains MacArthur’s title as a Great Military Leader. However, MacArthur also made a fair amount of mistakes, strategic miscalculations, and speeches that were detrimental to the success of the campaigns and his reputation. For instance, MacArthur’s political decisions during the Great Depression and the violent suppression of the protests caused irreparable damage to his public image.
Consequently, as mentioned in the previous chapter, MacArthur’s leadership style was frequently praised and criticized, depending on the period of his military career. Historians universally recognize the commander’s difficult personality and leadership models that directly opposed American democratic values on many occasions. This factor is a decisive difference between MacArthur and other Great Captains in military history for many experts. The commander proved to be a military genius on many occasions, but he also frequently demonstrated the inability to control his temperament and effectively manage the troops and political games. From these considerations, the perspective of the current work aligns with Geoffrey Perret’s conclusion that MacArthur was not a Great Captain and should not be called “MacArthur the Great.”
Bibliography
Fuller, John, F. C. 2004. The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Da Capo Press.
Keegan, John. 1988. The Mask of Command. Penguin Books.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R. and Engellau, Elisabet. 2004. Are Leaders Born or are They Made?: The Case of Alexander the Great. Karnac Books.
Kolenda, Christopher. 2001. Leadership: The Warrior’s Art. Army War College Foundation Press.
Manchester, William. 1978. American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964. Little, Brown and Company.
Perret, Geoffrey. 1996. Old Soldiers Never Die: The Life of Douglas MacArthur. Random House.
Perry, Mark. 2014. The Most Dangerous Man in America: The Making of Douglas MacArthur. Basic Books.
Showalter, Dennis. 2012. Frederick the Great: A Military History. Frontline Books.