“Just as it is not possible to sail a ship over the sea without knowledge of navigation, neither is it possible to overcome the enemy without discipline and generalship.” ~ Emperor Leo VI, Taktika
History shows that there are three unpredictable factors that determine whether a military leader is good or bad: first, the quality of those who join up; second, the training to deal with battle stress; and third, the psychological make-up of the individual. Despite the extraordinary attention that modern armies pay to the subject of military leadership, the answer to the question, “What makes a good (military) leader?” is neither simple nor universal. Yet, the Byzantine authorities, who lacked the meticulous screening processes of military cadets used in modern academies, assigned instead great importance to the qualities of a commander in their manuals, with conspicuous and notable parallels.
Advertisement
Because the noun δύναμις (strength) has been associated with physical power since Homeric times, the defining features of the body of a commander have always been – instinctively – linked to imposing size, which in turn indicated strength and vigour. In the Taktika by Emperor Leo VI (c.904), the general “must, inasmuch as possible, keep his body well-looking (εὐπρεπῆ) and strong (ῥωμαλέον).” Moreover, a commander’s overall appearance in armour and the condition of his military equipment were of great concern. It directly reflected the quality of the equipment and the overall discipline of his soldiers. As such, it was a testament to the army’s fighting prowess and willingness to engage in combat. The Byzantine general Kekaumenos puts it best in his Strategikon (ca.1075):
Compel your soldiers, above all, to have fine horses, and to have their equipment complete and polished, with harness and boots. You may be sure that if the soldier has a fine horse and clothes and equipment, if he is brave, he becomes twice as brave, and, if he is cowardly, you may be sure that he is encouraged, and becomes moderately efficient. If he is slovenly, with a big saddle, boots that don’t fit, a horse that’s no good, you should know that, even if he is brave, yet he is certainly planning, prematurely, how to save himself by running away.
Advertisement
The social background of the commander was also of great importance, and the sources clearly favour meritocracy over wealth and socio-political networking. In the Strategikon attributed to Emperor Maurice (ca.600), we read: “The best general is not the man of noble family, but the man who can take pride in his own deeds.” Leo also seems concerned some three centuries later about the ‘hijacking’ of the military commands by up-and-coming members of great aristocratic families such as the Doukai, Phokades, and Argyroi. The emperor notes in his Taktika:
If the man is descended from illustrious and highly regarded ancestors, then this must be in his favor but, if this is lacking, we should certainly not require such noble birth. Neither should we use this as a criterion to judge a man unworthy of being general if he clearly possesses the ability to assume that position. For just as we evaluate the good or bad pedigrees of animals by their individual performance and disposition, so we must also view the noble lineage of men, not from the perspective of their forefathers, but from that of their own performance and accomplishments.
For that reason, making appointments based on an individual’s merits rather than patronage served two purposes. First, it prevented corruption and factionalism in the military, which is something that many authors of military manuals heavily criticized in their work. Second, it allowed for the selection and training of good recruits.
A good wrestler
The general character traits of the ideal commander take up a substantial part of most of our sources. This is to be expected because, as Kekaumenos’ Strategikon puts it, “The general should be a model and a pattern to everyone. If some unknown man behaved foolishly, even if he has made a mistake, no one knows because of his insignificance: but if you, the general, have made the slightest and most unimportant error, you haven’t escaped notice, but immediately it’s been poured out in everyone’s hearing.”
Advertisement
Foremost in every author’s mind was the commander’s intelligence and “practical wisdom”, which they emphasize at the beginning of every section on the topic. “Let him be intelligent and wise,” explains Leo VI. “The general must be sharp-witted, fast-thinking, with his gaze turned in every direction. Unsuspected disorders frequently arise and force him, on the spur of the moment, to come up with a way to remedy the situation.” For Emperor Maurice, the connection between strategy and intellect is straightforward: “Strategy is essential to survival and is the true characteristic of an intelligent and courageous general.”
In addition, a leader had to be temperate and modest both in his appearance and in his everyday life. He also had to share in the daily burdens of his soldiers in order to win their respect rather than to provoke envy that could lead to insubordination. We find in Maurice’s Strategikon that “the general’s way of life should be plain and simple like that of his soldiers”. For Emperor Leo, a commander should be “frugal and unpretentious regarding his needs. Very costly and continual attendance upon the luxurious tastes of commanders wastes time without accomplishing anything … Let him endure toil and not be the first among the soldiers to seek rest. Rather, let him be a model to them in nobly bearing up under hard labor.”
A good commander, moreover, should be discreet, “not so dragged down by physical pleasures,” but also patient and able to bear hardship. The Sylloge Taktikorum (c.930) states: “so that if cold, heat, thirst, hunger, sleeplessness, or something else of that sort occur, he may not become weary first among his comrades but last. For the general must partake more than anybody else in the hardships, but less in the gains, because in this manner he may acquire every glory for himself.”
Advertisement
On top of that, he should be a soldier of high moral standards and avoid taking bribes, as these “can bring destruction down on his army”. Yet, he should also plan his strategy “like a good wrestler, feinting in one direction in an effort to deceive his opponent”. The ‘wrestler’ metaphor is common in Maurice, Leo VI, and the author of the Sylloge Taktikorum. Like a good father, he should be a strict disciplinarian, but also fair and generous to his soldiers, with Maurice writing, “The general who is overly harsh with his subordinates and the one who is too indulgent are both unfit for command. Fear leads to great hatred, and giving in too much results in being despised. It is best to take the middle course.”
Courage and prudence
Moreover, a commander should be vigilant and cautious, especially when dealing with important matters while campaigning in foreign lands. For Maurice, “it is a good idea to deliberate about difficult problems at night. During the night, it is easier to make plans, for one’s spirit is free of external disturbance. It is essential to be cautious and take your time in making plans, and once you come to a decision to carry it out right away without any hesitation or timidity.”
Yet, courage and boldness are paramount in a successful general, with the Sylloge Taktikorum explaining, “Whenever the enemy is reinforced by the arrival of an allied force or by some other advantage, and timidity and fear befall the army, it is especially then that the general will need to be seen as brave and undaunted.”
A good leader must be a good public speaker, to inspire confidence in his troops and raise their morale in adverse moments. Leo notes:
Advertisement
If the general, when he is drawing up his troops for battle, should encourage them by his words, he will often induce them to despise the terrors, even death itself. At the same time, he makes them eager to obtain the good and pleasant rewards.
Like a good strategist, he should also be able to “manage not only matters of immediate concern, but must also take thought for the future.” Finally, a great commander should be “prudent in counsel, and courteous to his associates,” yet Maurice cautions: “For what should be done seek the advice of many; for what you will actually do take council with only a few trustworthy people; then off by yourself alone decide on the best and most helpful plan to follow, and stick to it.”
So, answering the question, “What makes a good military leader?” involves all the above and much more. For leaders and military authors in Byzantium, the development of foundational leadership traits was more important than finding the right answer. After all, good military leadership is often acquired by practising each of these traits until they turn into habits the soldiers will expect, and the Byzantine authors were good at repeating them. Here they are: strength, good looks, intelligence, temperance, sharing in the hardships, discretion, patience, moral courage, physical courage, incorruptibility, strictness, fairness, generosity, setting yourself as an example (‘father figure’), vigilance, caution, boldness, oratorical skills, thinking ahead, and openness to counsel.
Georgios Theotokis: Ph.D History (2010, University of Glasgow), specializes in the military history of the Eastern Mediterranean in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. He has published numerous articles and books on the history of conflict and warfare in Europe and the Mediterranean in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. His latest book is Twenty Battles That Shaped Medieval Europe. He has taught in Turkish and Greek Universities; he is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Byzantine Studies Research Centre, Bosphorus University, Istanbul.
By Georgios Theotokis
“Just as it is not possible to sail a ship over the sea without knowledge of navigation, neither is it possible to overcome the enemy without discipline and generalship.” ~ Emperor Leo VI, Taktika
History shows that there are three unpredictable factors that determine whether a military leader is good or bad: first, the quality of those who join up; second, the training to deal with battle stress; and third, the psychological make-up of the individual. Despite the extraordinary attention that modern armies pay to the subject of military leadership, the answer to the question, “What makes a good (military) leader?” is neither simple nor universal. Yet, the Byzantine authorities, who lacked the meticulous screening processes of military cadets used in modern academies, assigned instead great importance to the qualities of a commander in their manuals, with conspicuous and notable parallels.
Because the noun δύναμις (strength) has been associated with physical power since Homeric times, the defining features of the body of a commander have always been – instinctively – linked to imposing size, which in turn indicated strength and vigour. In the Taktika by Emperor Leo VI (c.904), the general “must, inasmuch as possible, keep his body well-looking (εὐπρεπῆ) and strong (ῥωμαλέον).” Moreover, a commander’s overall appearance in armour and the condition of his military equipment were of great concern. It directly reflected the quality of the equipment and the overall discipline of his soldiers. As such, it was a testament to the army’s fighting prowess and willingness to engage in combat. The Byzantine general Kekaumenos puts it best in his Strategikon (ca.1075):
Compel your soldiers, above all, to have fine horses, and to have their equipment complete and polished, with harness and boots. You may be sure that if the soldier has a fine horse and clothes and equipment, if he is brave, he becomes twice as brave, and, if he is cowardly, you may be sure that he is encouraged, and becomes moderately efficient. If he is slovenly, with a big saddle, boots that don’t fit, a horse that’s no good, you should know that, even if he is brave, yet he is certainly planning, prematurely, how to save himself by running away.
The social background of the commander was also of great importance, and the sources clearly favour meritocracy over wealth and socio-political networking. In the Strategikon attributed to Emperor Maurice (ca.600), we read: “The best general is not the man of noble family, but the man who can take pride in his own deeds.” Leo also seems concerned some three centuries later about the ‘hijacking’ of the military commands by up-and-coming members of great aristocratic families such as the Doukai, Phokades, and Argyroi. The emperor notes in his Taktika:
If the man is descended from illustrious and highly regarded ancestors, then this must be in his favor but, if this is lacking, we should certainly not require such noble birth. Neither should we use this as a criterion to judge a man unworthy of being general if he clearly possesses the ability to assume that position. For just as we evaluate the good or bad pedigrees of animals by their individual performance and disposition, so we must also view the noble lineage of men, not from the perspective of their forefathers, but from that of their own performance and accomplishments.
For that reason, making appointments based on an individual’s merits rather than patronage served two purposes. First, it prevented corruption and factionalism in the military, which is something that many authors of military manuals heavily criticized in their work. Second, it allowed for the selection and training of good recruits.
A good wrestler
The general character traits of the ideal commander take up a substantial part of most of our sources. This is to be expected because, as Kekaumenos’ Strategikon puts it, “The general should be a model and a pattern to everyone. If some unknown man behaved foolishly, even if he has made a mistake, no one knows because of his insignificance: but if you, the general, have made the slightest and most unimportant error, you haven’t escaped notice, but immediately it’s been poured out in everyone’s hearing.”
Foremost in every author’s mind was the commander’s intelligence and “practical wisdom”, which they emphasize at the beginning of every section on the topic. “Let him be intelligent and wise,” explains Leo VI. “The general must be sharp-witted, fast-thinking, with his gaze turned in every direction. Unsuspected disorders frequently arise and force him, on the spur of the moment, to come up with a way to remedy the situation.” For Emperor Maurice, the connection between strategy and intellect is straightforward: “Strategy is essential to survival and is the true characteristic of an intelligent and courageous general.”
A good commander, moreover, should be discreet, “not so dragged down by physical pleasures,” but also patient and able to bear hardship. The Sylloge Taktikorum (c.930) states: “so that if cold, heat, thirst, hunger, sleeplessness, or something else of that sort occur, he may not become weary first among his comrades but last. For the general must partake more than anybody else in the hardships, but less in the gains, because in this manner he may acquire every glory for himself.”
On top of that, he should be a soldier of high moral standards and avoid taking bribes, as these “can bring destruction down on his army”. Yet, he should also plan his strategy “like a good wrestler, feinting in one direction in an effort to deceive his opponent”. The ‘wrestler’ metaphor is common in Maurice, Leo VI, and the author of the Sylloge Taktikorum. Like a good father, he should be a strict disciplinarian, but also fair and generous to his soldiers, with Maurice writing, “The general who is overly harsh with his subordinates and the one who is too indulgent are both unfit for command. Fear leads to great hatred, and giving in too much results in being despised. It is best to take the middle course.”
Courage and prudence
Moreover, a commander should be vigilant and cautious, especially when dealing with important matters while campaigning in foreign lands. For Maurice, “it is a good idea to deliberate about difficult problems at night. During the night, it is easier to make plans, for one’s spirit is free of external disturbance. It is essential to be cautious and take your time in making plans, and once you come to a decision to carry it out right away without any hesitation or timidity.”
Yet, courage and boldness are paramount in a successful general, with the Sylloge Taktikorum explaining, “Whenever the enemy is reinforced by the arrival of an allied force or by some other advantage, and timidity and fear befall the army, it is especially then that the general will need to be seen as brave and undaunted.”
A good leader must be a good public speaker, to inspire confidence in his troops and raise their morale in adverse moments. Leo notes:
If the general, when he is drawing up his troops for battle, should encourage them by his words, he will often induce them to despise the terrors, even death itself. At the same time, he makes them eager to obtain the good and pleasant rewards.
Like a good strategist, he should also be able to “manage not only matters of immediate concern, but must also take thought for the future.” Finally, a great commander should be “prudent in counsel, and courteous to his associates,” yet Maurice cautions: “For what should be done seek the advice of many; for what you will actually do take council with only a few trustworthy people; then off by yourself alone decide on the best and most helpful plan to follow, and stick to it.”
Georgios Theotokis: Ph.D History (2010, University of Glasgow), specializes in the military history of the Eastern Mediterranean in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. He has published numerous articles and books on the history of conflict and warfare in Europe and the Mediterranean in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. His latest book is Twenty Battles That Shaped Medieval Europe. He has taught in Turkish and Greek Universities; he is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Byzantine Studies Research Centre, Bosphorus University, Istanbul.
Click here to read more from Georgios Theotokis
Further Reading:
McGeer, Eric. Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995.
Dennis, George T. The Taktika of Leo VI. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010.
Chatzelis, Georgios, and Harris, Jonathan. A Tenth-Century Byzantine Military Manual: The Sylloge Tacticorum. Oxon: Routledge, 2017.
Top Image: A Byzantine victory in battle during the region of Leo VI (886-912). This emperor was also the author of Taktika. © Biblioteca Nacional de España, MS Graecus Vitr. 26–2, fol. 109r
This article was first published in Medieval Warfare magazine
Related Posts
Subscribe to Medievalverse