At 15:05 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:11:30PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
>
> > David Cantrell wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and
> > > Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders.
> >
> > Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
> > Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ...
> >
> > Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of
> > connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'...
>
>As I think you realised, I didn't meant the usual sort of charisma. I
>mean more along the lines of those 'charismatic' evangelist churches and
>other religious cults.
:-) Too good an opportunity to miss. Perhaps the difference between your
set of leaders and mine, is that the ones you mentioned all had personality
cults to a degree, although in the case of Churchill I wouldn't have said
so.
However, in the case of Alexander the Great, certainly, I would say they
had a personality cult similar to or greater than Hitler's (or to a sect
leader, or whatever). Alexander inspired God like devotion in his men, and
was as insanely ambitious as Hitler. And a much much much better general.
Military leaders have quite often had significant personality cults within
their own armies (right up to Montgomery and McArthur).
We tend to condemn personality cults outright these days. However, I think
for much of history they were the basis of social organisation to a greater
or lesser degree. Certainly northern Europe before (and to some extend
after (vikings, saxons etc)) the Romans was based around small king's whose
leadership was determined mainly by personal loyalty. In some ways quite
democratic, in other ways deeply unstable. Probably the single greatest
reason the Vikings didn't conquer Europe.
--
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
