ABSTRACT
This case study analysis of military leadership effectiveness through a selected campaign history of the north of England and southern Scotland between 1642 and 1651 began with the caveat that there is no consensual definition of military leadership. Given this pre-condition, the most that can be accomplished is to analyse each subject’s actions and decisions. While leadership is not quantifiable, outcomes are. Battles are either won or lost and the results affect the entire contextual pattern of societies: religious, social, economic, constitutional and political. By evaluating the outcomes of military actions and commanders’ decisions, a measure of an officer’s military effectiveness is possible. Despite the long-standing debate over the primacy of trait, behavioural, situational or transformational factors as the primary determinant of effective leadership, it is possible to derive a model against which to evaluate leadership. In developing a model, this study incorporates long-accepted traits and behaviours of superior leadership reaching back to the ancient Chinese and Mediterranean civilizations and ranging to the most current theories. A workable model can be constructed (martial synergy) based on the most fundamental characteristics (traits and behaviours) exhibited by successful commanders: consistency, moral authority, aggressiveness and martial superiority. Inherent in these four characteristics are the traits and behaviours viewed through the ages as those of a successful military leader. Of critical importance to this model is the contextual basis of British society in the mid-Stuart era, most notably, religion, politics and constitutional concepts. Human dynamics such as fear, confidence and the motivation to fight modulate the traits, behaviour and context within this analytical framework. Therefore, it is possible to rate the military effectiveness of the regional commanders on the outcomes of their efforts based on this analytical model of effective military leadership. In this light, three relative military effectiveness judgements can be made and each officer placed into a category – highly effective, moderately effective or ineffective.
