What the Best Commanders of History Had in Common

Since the earliest days of human history, men have fought in battles. The outcome of those battles was determined by many things. Who had more soldiers, who held the high ground, or simply luck. However, often battles came down to something else. Who was commanding each army? An intelligent, charismatic leader could take a small force and defeat a much larger one. On the other hand, an incompetent or weak leader could lose everything, even if the odds were stacked in his favour. Every army in history had a leader. Most of them were average, and if they won, it was mainly down to luck. However, every so often a man would come along who seemed to be from a different planet. A man who seemed able to win any battle that he fought. A military genius in a league of his own. One example would be Napoleon, who came from humble origins and went on to crush army after army in Europe. He was fighting well-equipped, professional militaries. And even so, at one point he was absolutely unbeatable on the battlefield. Another example would be Alexander the Great, who was able to conquer most of the known world by the age of 30. With a relatively small number of men, he invaded the largest and richest empire in the world and conquered it entirely. In his short but astonishing life, he fought in over 20 major battles and won every single one of them. So, what made those men military geniuses? What skills or habits allowed them to totally outclass their peers? In this video, I want to go through what I think made those men so unbeatable. The traits that all the best commanders in history had in common. The first trait that you need to become a brilliant commander is, of course, intelligence. It goes without saying that a stupid man will never be able to reliably vanquish his foes on the battlefield. In the words of the famous Prussian general Karl von Clausewitz, a great commander needs, When we look at the best commanders of history, we immediately see that many of them were extremely intelligent. Perhaps the best example of that is none other than Napoleon Bonaparte. In particular, Napoleon was famous for having an astonishing memory. There are many quotes from people at the time which talk about how well he could recall information years after he'd last been exposed to it. One particularly great quote comes from the memoir of one of Napoleon's private secretaries, Baron Claude de Meneval. According to the memoir, Another great quote comes from years later after Napoleon had been defeated and Paris taken. After his defeat, Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba, just off the coast of Italy. Of course, only a few years earlier, when he had dominated all of Europe, Napoleon had been in charge of what happened on the island. He had actually ordered a whole load of construction work be done. Then, years later, when he was exiled to the island, he met with one of the officials that had been in charge of doing the work that he had ordered. According to the official, Napoleon was able to remember absolutely every last detail of what he had ordered, even though it had been years earlier. In his words, The dates were present in his memory as if he had never occupied himself with anything else. Memory was an immense advantage for the emperor. The entire history of the empire was classified in his immeasurable head. Now, Napoleon also had an incredible memory for people and conversations. According to one anecdote, in one of his early campaigns in Italy, he had a brief conversation with a low-ranking soldier. Then, years later, Napoleon met the man again and was able to recall his name, his hometown, and what they had talked about in their previous conversation. However, it wasn't just Napoleon's memory that was exceptional. He also had an amazing ability to learn very fast. For example, he was able to quickly learn a huge amount about law, despite never having actually studied it. Napoleon actually wanted to completely overhaul the entire French legal framework. He wanted to get rid of the complex and inconsistent laws that had existed for centuries in France. Despite not being a lawyer himself, he took an active role in drawing up the new laws and was able to get up to speed astonishingly quickly. Some of the people present in those sessions talked about how fast Napoleon could grasp new legal concepts. He asked incisive questions, often cutting through the abstract vague arguments of other lawyers to get to practical points. In no time at all, Napoleon knew enough about the law to discuss and debate with magistrates who had been studying it for their entire lives. In the end, that legal framework, the Napoleonic Code, was finished in just a few years, in large part because of Napoleon's ability to learn the law so fast. Napoleon also had a talent for maths and science. When he was still studying in the military academy, he performed very well in maths, which was a required skill for him as he was training to be an artillery officer. In fact, even when he was emperor, he kept in contact personally with the leading scientists of the day. Supposedly, he once had a conversation with the important mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace. Laplace presented Napoleon with a copy of his theory of celestial mechanics, to which Napoleon quipped about why Laplace's work didn't mention God. Laplace supposedly replied, I had no need for that hypothesis. Now, whether or not that exchange actually happened like that, it still shows how Napoleon was very engaged with science. In fact, Napoleon actually showed so much interest and ability in maths that for a long time people thought that he had come up with his own theorem, Napoleon's theorem in geometry. The theorem states that, if equilateral triangles are constructed on the sides of any triangle, then the centers of the three equilateral triangles will themselves form an equilateral triangle. For a long time, people thought that Napoleon was the first person to come up with the proof of that. However, what's more likely is that he heard it from someone and then explained it in conversation to some mathematicians and they were so impressed that they credited him with it. Whatever the truth may be, we can see that Napoleon was far from simply a military man. He was a polymath with knowledge of every area of life. Another good example of a very intelligent commander is the famous Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca. Just to remind you, Hannibal was the man that took over 40 elephants over the Alps to invade Italy and try to destroy the Romans. After making it to Italy, Hannibal then crushed the Romans in three very famous battles and actually came very close to destroying the entire Roman state. There are many historical accounts of Hannibal using his cunning mind in his campaigns. One of my favorites is of a moment of peril in 217 BC. Hannibal and a group of only about 2,000 men were surrounded by the Romans in the south of Italy. To escape the encirclement, Hannibal came up with an ingenious plan. One night, he ordered flaming torches to be tied to the horns of several thousand oxen. He then drove the oxen up a hillside. The Roman centuries, seeing what looked like a mass of lights on the move, assumed that the Carthaginians were stealthily breaking out of the encirclement and rushed to cut them off. While the Romans were pursuing what was just a decoy of torches and oxen, Hannibal and his army were able to slip away. That story became a famous example of Hannibal's creativity and cunning. Hannibal and Napoleon are just two examples of great commanders that were also highly intelligent, but there are many other men that I could name. The American general Robert E. Lee was also a very capable man. Just to remind you, Lee fought for the south in the American Civil War of the 1860s. He is remembered as a great general because he was able to make it very difficult for the north to win, even though they had some big advantages such as twice the population and 10 times as many industrial workers. It was because of Lee's ability as a commander that the south was able to win some impressive victories like the Second Battle of Bull Run. We actually know that Lee was a man of great intelligence because we know how well he did when he was in the military academy. Lee entered West Point in 1825 and quickly showed himself to be an exemplary student. He graduated second in his class of 46 cadets and without a single demerit. Then as a senior cadet, he actually served as an assistant maths instructor tutoring his fellow cadets. Of course, that was only possible because he himself had mastered the material. One final example of a very intelligent commander is the Prussian king Frederick the Great. He was one of the greatest commanders of the 1700s and was a huge idol for Napoleon. Frederick won numerous impressive battles such as the Battle of Rossbach, part of the Seven Years' War. In that encounter, Frederick's forces were outnumbered 2 to 1 and yet he still managed to defeat the French in less than 90 minutes. Frederick's success on the battlefield was definitely in part because he was a very high IQ individual. In fact, he was actually famous for his intellect. The very important French philosopher Voltaire spent a lot of time at the Prussian court and was very impressed by Frederick's breadth of knowledge. In letters he wrote about how the Prussian monarch could discuss literature, philosophy, science or military strategy with ease. As you can see, to be a truly great commander a man needs to have a fine mind. Of course, that isn't enough. That great intellect has to be focused on mastering the art of war and that brings us on to the second thing that they all had in common. They studied war. In fact, Frederick the Great once said whoever wishes to master the art of war must study it continuously. Frederick himself absolutely took his own advice. He studied war almost obsessively. In fact, people at the time actually commented on how much he knew about military history. One man who was particularly impressed by Frederick's knowledge of war was the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. He once said when the King of Prussia speaks on problems connected with the art of war which he has studied intensively and has read every conceivable book then everything is taught solid and uncommonly instructive. There is no wordiness. He gives factual and historical proof of the assertions that he makes for he is well versed in history. Another great example of this is a man that I mentioned before the Roman General Scipio Africanus. He is remembered for being a military genius because it was him that was eventually able to defeat Hannibal. You see, after Hannibal's early victories against the Romans he wasn't able to capitalize on them and win the war. The two sides carried on fighting for 16 years and throughout that time Scipio studied how Hannibal fought battles. Scipio had actually been present at one of Hannibal's most famous victories the Battle of Cannae and so he had seen firsthand how Hannibal could draw in an enemy and then encircle them. Scipio worked out how to adjust the Roman formations to stop that happening again. He also saw how Hannibal used his war elephants. He came up with ways to neutralize them placing gaps in his lines for the elephants to harmlessly pass through. Eventually, the two generals met at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. Having studied Hannibal, Scipio knew how to win. He made sure to get a local tribe called the Numidians on his side as they were formidable cavalrymen and they'd been key to Hannibal's previous victories. Scipio also carefully chose the battlefield where he wanted to fight. He wanted open terrain to make the most of his advantage in cavalry. In the end, the battle was extremely close but the Roman forces were just about able to overcome the Carthaginians. It was because of that victory that Scipio was dubbed Scipio Africanus. His success was in large part due to his in-depth studying of Hannibal. One last example is the World War II general George S. Patton. In particular, he studied his contemporary, the German commander Erwin Rommel. Rommel had become famous because of his brilliant leadership in North Africa. He had a knack for daring armored attacks which earned him the nickname the Desert Fox. He had a string of victories against the British which made a strong impression on the Allied commanders. One of those watching closely was George Patton. Patton intensively studied Rommel's tactics, both what he did and what he wrote. In fact, Patton read Rommel's own book cover to cover. He wanted to understand exactly how Rommel thought and fought. That preparation paid off when Patton himself was commanding his inexperienced troops in Tunisia. Now, by that point, Rommel himself had actually left Africa to go back to Germany but Patton had to fight his well-trained men who were steeped in his tactics. Patton was able to anticipate what the German troops were going to do because he had read Rommel's book. In fact, in 1970, they actually made a film about Patton which has this moment. However, only so much about war can be learned from books. Some things have to be learned first-hand from experience. That brings me on to a third thing that many of the best commanders of history had in common. They themselves had experience on the battlefield in their youth. Often, those early experiences played a key role in shaping how the man fought battles when he was a commander. A good example is Alexander the Great. Before he himself was in charge, he fought under the command of his father, Philip II. The best known example of that is the Battle of Chiarona of 338 BC. That was a battle between Macedon, led by Philip, and a coalition of Greek city-states such as Athens, Thebes and Corinth. The father and son combo worked together to achieve a decisive victory for Macedon. Philip feigned a retreat which drew in the Athenian troops, stretching their line. That left a gap which Alexander was able to exploit. He led a charge into the gap and broke the enemy line. That experience had a deep impact on Alexander and affected how he commanded armies. Years later, when he was in charge, he used the same tactic against the Persians at the Battle of Gaugamela. Again, he used the idea of stretching the enemy line to make a weakness that he could then attack. The Persian king fled and with that Alexander had conquered the vast Persian empire. That huge victory was in part due to the experience he had early in his life. Another example of this is, again, Hannibal. Hannibal's formative years were spent in Spain, fighting under the command of his father, Hamilcar Barca. There he learned the value of speed and surprise. In fact, the nickname Barca actually meant thunderbolt and was a reference to the lightning fast guerrilla tactics that his father used. It was during those campaigns in Spain that the young Hannibal learned the art of war firsthand, particularly how to carry out ambushes and how to fight in rugged terrain. Later, under the command of his brother-in-law, Hasdrubal, Hannibal learned how to command a variety of different units, such as Africans, Iberians, Numidian cavalry and war elephants. That was extremely valuable for when he eventually led a very diverse army across the Alps. Hannibal's experience in Spain had a big impact on him as a commander. For example, at the Battle of the Tagus River in central Spain, Hannibal was outnumbered by a large Iberian coalition. However, he came up with a brilliant ruse to win. He feigned retreat away from the river and tempted the enemy to try to cross it. Then, as they were halfway across the river and funneled into narrow fords, Hannibal attacked. His cavalry and elephants devastated the disorganized Iberian tribes. It was a brilliant and effective tactic and Hannibal remembered it. Four years later, at his famous Battle of Cannae, he did something similar. He lured the Roman legions into an encirclement and then, when he had them surrounded, he was able to annihilate them. One last example of this is again Napoleon. As a youth, Napoleon Bonaparte trained as an artillery officer and the first-hand experience that he got with artillery units early in his career would shape how he commanded battles, even when he was in charge of the entire army. Napoleon's first taste of real combat came at the siege of Toulon in 1793. The French forces were trying to retake the port city from French rebels backed by the British and Spanish. At that point, Napoleon was just 24 years old and was serving as a mere artillery captain. However, the senior officer was wounded, which allowed Napoleon to take charge of the whole artillery. Napoleon saw that his artillery would be more effective if it was firing directly onto the ships of Toulon harbour. That way, the British ships would suffer significant damage but they wouldn't be able to hit the French artillery back. In the end, the British ships were forced to leave the harbour and with that, the French army was able to capture it. Throughout his whole career, Napoleon's experience with artillery was crucial to how he fought battles. He was the only great commander of the time who was a professional artilleryman. That meant that he understood physics and technology much better than his contemporaries. They were typically cavalry or infantry officers and used much more traditional methods of fighting. At the time, most European generals used artillery cautiously and defensively. Guns were deployed in small static batteries behind infantry lines where they fired long-range shots. Guns were also dispersed thinly across the army which diluted their firepower. Used like that, the immense power of cannons was essentially wasted in a secondary role. Napoleon's experience in his early battles showed him that artillery had the potential to be a much more important factor than that. At the siege of Toulon, which I mentioned earlier, it alone had essentially won the entire battle for the French. Napoleon revolutionised the way that artillery was used. In particular, he took more risks with his artillery and used it more aggressively. Instead of spreading his cannons throughout the army and using them defensively, Napoleon concentrated them in powerful groups which created overwhelming firepower at decisive points. He positioned them high up on hills which allowed them to dominate the battlefield. In his famous Italian campaigns, Napoleon showed how artillery could and should be used. He would move his artillery right up to the enemy lines and blast them from point-blank range. However, to use artillery like that really required that they be faster, more manoeuvrable. Napoleon realised that traditional artillery was too slow for the modern battlefield. During those fast-moving battles, he saw that his artillery couldn't keep up with his infantry or cavalry. Napoleon saw that what was needed was units of light guns with the gunners on horseback. That allowed them to race across the battlefield, deploy in minutes and deliver punishing fire where it was needed. Now, that sort of horse-drawn artillery had already been invented but Napoleon massively expanded its use. That allowed him to make artillery a mobile weapon of shock and speed just like his cavalry. He was able to do that and use artillery in such a new and bold way in large part because it was what he had first-hand experience with. Now, for a commander to have battlefield experience is one thing but something else that some of the best commanders did was actually participate in their own battles even when they were in charge. That was, of course, most common in ancient battles and perhaps the best example is Alexander the Great. Unlike other kings who might ride behind the lines and issue orders from a hilltop, Alexander placed himself in the thick of the fighting, often in the most dangerous area. He always fought with his elite heavy cavalry and attacked the strongest point of the enemy formation. A good example is the battle of Galgamela where Alexander fought the Persian king himself. As the battle began, Alexander positioned himself on the right flank of the battlefield while Darius positioned himself in the center of the Persian line. He was surrounded by his elite troops and war chariots but Alexander launched a bold maneuver directly at him. He first led his cavalry in a sweeping arc out to the right, drawing in part of the Persian left. That created a gap in the Persian lines. Alexander charged straight through the gap directly at Darius. In the chaos, Darius panicked and fled the battlefield in his chariot, abandoning the fight and making the Persian morale collapse. The contrast between the two commanders couldn't have been greater. Alexander led a decisive charge in person, risking his life to deliver a decisive blow, while Darius fled at the moment of greatest danger despite having far more men. Alexander's fearless attitude was true throughout his entire career. During one siege in India, Alexander grew impatient with the slow pace of the assault on the fortress. He took matters into his own hands and seized a ladder and with just two bodyguards he climbed the wall himself. When his soldiers saw that their king was alone on the battlements, they rushed to follow. Alexander did win the battle but he actually suffered a heavy injury to his lung from an arrow which almost cost him his life. Throughout his entire career, Alexander's bravery meant that he suffered a total of eight major combat wounds. His willingness to put his own life on the line inspired his men and made them fight even harder. Alexander was one of the bravest commanders ever but he certainly wasn't the only man to participate in his own battles. Another example is Julius Caesar. Caesar often put himself in the heart of the action just like Alexander did. He famously fought alongside his men at the Battle of Munda of 45 BC. That was the last major engagement of the Roman Civil War against the forces of Pompey Magnus. The battle was fiercely contested. Caesar's legions struggled to break through the enemy lines and began to falter under the resistance. Sensing the danger of collapse, Caesar dismounted his horse and grabbed a shield from a fallen soldier. He rushed to the front lines and fought side by side with his legionaries. His sudden appearance in the midst of the battle electrified his troops. Emboldened by their leader's courage, they rallied with renewed determination and ultimately crushed the Pompeian forces. Caesar had won the battle but it had been a very close call. He himself had almost been killed. He later reflected on what happened saying, I have often fought for victory but this day I fought for my life. Alexander and Caesar are both from ancient history but there are examples of more modern commanders fighting in their own battles. One good example is the British admiral Horatio Nelson. He is most famous for the important victory at Trafalgar but even before that he had a reputation as a brave and hands-on commander who got involved in the fighting. For example, during the battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in 1797 he personally led an amphibious assault in which he was seriously wounded and lost his right arm. Despite the injury, he continued to lead. Another good example is the American general Curtis LeMay. LeMay was a general in the air force during World War II. He became famous for his innovative thinking about aerial warfare and also for getting personally involved in combat. In 1942, just after America entered the Second World War, the American air force first came into combat with the German air force, the Luftwaffe. At that point, the Luftwaffe was still formidable with very experienced pilots and so American losses were extremely high. In fact, within the first 10 months of operation, the Americans lost about 73% of their crewmen. In order to be able to make better decisions, LeMay decided that he was going to participate in the battles himself. Over the next few years, he would personally fly numerous combat missions over Europe. That would lead to him eventually receiving both the Air Medal and the Silver Star. Years after his service, he gave an interview where he explained why he had decided to put himself in danger and personally participate in those combat missions. He said, So, I started out leading all missions personally. Not only did I feel that I ought to lead the people fighting under me, but I had to find things out. You have to get in there to find out what it's all about. That attitude of being willing to sacrifice their own life was typical amongst the best commanders of history. One final thing that I'd like to talk about is that many of the best commanders in history believed very strongly in meritocracy. All of them had to choose men who would both advise them or lead armies when they weren't able to. Now, in many times and places throughout history, being an advisor to the king or a high-ranking general required being of noble birth. However, many of the best conquerors of history were much more focused on promoting the most competent, capable men regardless of their background. One of the clearest examples of that is Genghis Khan. Just to remind you, Genghis Khan was the man who united all the Mongol tribes and went on to conquer the largest land empire the world had ever seen. That would involve defeating some of the most formidable empires at the time, such as the Chinese Jin Empire or the Muslim Khwarizmian Empire. They were both very rich and had professional armies. One of the keys to Genghis Khan's success was the very meritocratic way that he picked his generals. Almost all of them were of humble origin. Chosen for their talent and performance on the battlefield. A good example of that is Subutai, perhaps Genghis Khan's greatest general. Subutai was the son of a blacksmith and a servant, but that didn't matter to Genghis Khan who quickly recognized his talent. Subutai's first chance to command men came in 1197 when he was only 22 years old. Genghis Khan wanted to defeat a rival Mongol tribe and so he tasked Subutai with destroying one of their smaller armies. He offered Subutai a large number of elite troops, but Subutai refused saying that he didn't need them. Instead of attacking the enemy directly, Subutai decided that he would use sheer cunning to defeat them. He traveled to the enemy camp and persuaded them that he was a Mongol deserter. He managed to convince them that the main Mongol army was far away. As a result, they lowered their guard and reduced their patrols. That allowed the Mongols to take them by surprise, surround them and ultimately defeat them. Heroic and ingenious feats like that were exactly what Genghis Khan was looking for in his commanders. Another great example is another of Genghis Khan's generals, Jebe. Jebe was originally an enemy archer who actually wounded Genghis Khan in battle. Even so, Genghis won the battle and after it was over, he went to the enemy camp and asked who had fired the arrow which struck him. Jebe appeared and confessed that it was him. He said that Genghis Khan was free to take his life if he wanted. However, Genghis Khan didn't kill Jebe. In fact, he allowed him the opportunity to join his army. Genghis Khan sincerely admired the young man's bravery and honesty, as well as his skill with a bow and arrow. Eventually, Jebe would become one of the most important generals in the Mongol army. During the invasion of China, he commanded the left flank of the army. He and Subutai repeatedly executed complex maneuvers such as flanks or feigned retreats which confused the Chinese leading to their defeat. The two men would work together again a few years later in what was known as the Great Raid. That was a huge campaign of reconnaissance and plunder which covered a huge amount of territory including Iran, the Caucasus and Russia. Again, Subutai and Jebe used feigned retreats and encirclements to defeat their enemies. The competence of Subutai and Jebe were a big part of why the Mongol empire grew so big. Neither of them were of noble birth but they were chosen by Genghis Khan because of their talents. Another brilliant example of this principle is once again Napoleon. Before the French Revolution, the French military command system was heavily dominated by the aristocracy. Getting to the top of the military was largely the domain of the nobility. They treated military service as a way to get social prestige rather than something that required competence. Often, high-ranking positions would actually be purchased. As a result, many French generals in pre-revolutionary France were pretty poor. The officer corps was notoriously stuck in its ways and resistant to innovation. In fact, it was that classist structure that was actually a big part of the reason that France lost the Seven Years' War in the 1750s. After the French Revolution, when Napoleon took power, he changed all that. He understood firsthand the failings of the old aristocratic model and he built a new system which prioritized skill, innovation and loyalty. His generals came from humble origins but proved themselves repeatedly on the battlefield. Napoleon's decision to reward merit regardless of background gave the French military an incredibly competent leadership. A good example of that is Michel Ney. He was the son of a humble barrel maker and spent the first part of his life working as a miner. Once he entered the military, Ney was quickly noticed for his exceptional courage. In fact, he was actually nicknamed the bravest of the brave. When he got a chance to command, he did very well. For example, in one battle in 1797, Austrian lancers were on the verge of capturing the French cannons. Ney launched a bold charge with his cavalry squadron, driving the Austrians back and securing the French artillery. Then, with his cavalry, he managed to get behind the Austrian lines and attack from the rear. That caused about 6,000 Austrian reserves to rout. A few years later, Ney proved himself again. French forces along the Rhine were trying to take Austrian forts in the hope that that would relieve pressure on French forces further south. One of the forts that they wanted to capture was Mannheim. If they took that, it would make all of southwestern Germany much easier to capture. Ney was ordered to capture the city as fast as possible. What Ney did was daring, cunning and ingenious. In a disguise, he scouted the city's outer defenses and spoke to civilians. He actually managed to recruit a pregnant woman to help him sneak 150 men into the city. That very small force turned out to be enough. The garrison was intimidated into surrendering the city and the French were able to take it without fighting. For that stroke of brilliance, he was promoted to general of division. After demonstrating his competence so well, Ney was invited to meet Napoleon and would eventually become a marshal of the French army, the highest rank. Ney would go on to play a major role in some of Napoleon's most famous victories such as Friedland and Borodino. That story of zero to hero was typical of many of Napoleon's marshals. Another example is André Messena. Messena was actually an orphan and he did odd jobs until he enlisted as a private at age 17. Eventually, he would become a non-commissioned officer which was the highest rank that a commoner could achieve in the royal army. Before the French revolution, it looked like he would never be able to be anything more than a non-commissioned officer. However, when Napoleon came to power, he quickly recognized the talent of Messena. At the siege of Toulon, he captured a critical fort and then turned the fort's cannons on the enemy fleet. That bold act earned him a promotion to general of division. A few years later, under the command of Napoleon, he once again proved his worth at the battle of Rivoli. His division delivered the decisive thrust that crushed the Austrian rear. In fact, his role in the battle was so important that afterwards Napoleon nicknamed him the dear child of victory. Napoleon's willingness to promote based on merit was quite different from some of the other empires that he was fighting. Austria is a good example. The Austrian military was one of the most birth-obsessed in Europe. For a man to get promoted beyond a colonel almost always required a prestigious family name. That was a huge hindrance to the Austrian performance on the battlefield. For example, in 1800, the Austrian emperor gave command of the Bavarian front to his 18-year-old brother, Archduke John. John was intelligent but was totally inexperienced in battle. Now, in theory, an army veteran was going to guide John. The problem was that etiquette forbade the veteran from overruling anything that the archduke said. The result was a complete fiasco at the battle of Hohenlinden. Confronted with the French forces moving incredibly fast in front of him, John issued contradictory orders and lost contact with his troops in the snow-covered forest. Within only a few hours, the Austrians had lost about 15,000 men, the vast majority of them taken prisoner. That disaster was in large part because of the Austrian tendency to value noble birth in their commanders. However, the Austrians didn't learn. Five years later, they and their allies, the Russians, met the French at the battle of Austerlitz. The plan of the Russians and Austrians was drafted by Franz von Weyrauther, an Austrian aristocrat who had already shown signs of incompetence. In fact, Weyrauther was blamed for some of the earlier Austrian losses against Napoleon in Italy. Ignoring reconnaissance and Russian misgivings, Weyrauther ordered a slow frontal march that opened a gap in the center. That was precisely what Napoleon was waiting for. He launched a counter-attack through the center which split the enemy forces. The Austrian and Russian forces ended up routed. It was a huge victory for France and one of Napoleon's greatest victories. Again, it was partly down to the fact that the Austrian commander only had his position because of his family name. While the Austrians were bad, the Russians were no better. In fact, by 1812, over four-fifths of Russian officers belonged to the aristocracy. Many of them were actually made officers when they were children only to enhance their family's prestige. We can actually see the effect of that if we again look at the battle of Austerlitz. On the left wing, there was Field Marshal Count Bohoxton, a court favorite who arrived drunk. On the right, the Imperial Guard was under the command of Grand Duke Constantine who led them in a reckless charge against the French. Both those men had their position because of their noble birth. As you would imagine, when incompetent men such as those came up against Napoleon or one of his extremely competent marshals on the battlefield, they didn't stand a chance. In my view, that was a big part of the reason that Napoleon was able to dominate Europe to the extent that he did. Overall, there was a lot that the best commanders in history had in common from their sometimes genius level intelligence to their firm belief in meritocracy. Those traits allowed those men to build some of the biggest empires the world has ever seen. Under them, armies could achieve astonishing things. I think the importance of a good commander is well summed up by a proverb normally attributed to Alexander the Great. He supposedly said, An army of sheep led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by a sheep.