Yes, stunning plan to defeat larger better equipped enemy who was ill prepared and ill suited to fight. His famous quote " I fear all we may have accomplished is to have awakened a Sleeping Giant..." are immortal words. A fearless leader, great tactician especiall in the new carrier Operations he led the way for aerial engagements at sea, learned from the British and their engagements in Italy and the capabilities of torpedo planes, dive bombers and defensive abilities of a Destroyer Screen and Combat Air Patrols. Read the books on the Battles of Pearl Harbour and The Campaigns for Midway and the South Pacific...
Strong military, good government and leader, and power
The term supreme leader is most likely to be used in a military dictatorship. Kim Jong Il of North Korea would be a good example of a supreme leader.
Saladin was an excellent leader, and he had an excellent understanding of military matters. He was also willing to negotiate with the enemy.
To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation. ----- Unfortunately there is no evidence that Yamamoto ever said this. There is a reference link below on this. HOAX - NO PROOF IT WAS EVER SAID. Apparently, there is no proof that this was ever said, that is correct. However, it should be noted that Yamamoto spent time in the U.S., attending Harvard for two or more years. He spoke fluent English and had a keen understanding of the industrial capabilities of the United States. He did not want war with the U.S. for this, and possibly other reason. Therefore, while he may not have made this now-famous quote, it is likely that he may have believed it, therefore being a good person to attribute it to.
no he was not people hated him
snowball is a dedicated leader as well as a good military leader, later on in the story snowball is criticised of being a traitor by napoleon.
Good old George Washington
It needs Spirit, power, Men,I mean real Men,Technology,and a good leader . Good luck with your reaserch :)
Strong military, good government and leader, and power
The term supreme leader is most likely to be used in a military dictatorship. Kim Jong Il of North Korea would be a good example of a supreme leader.
Paul in the Bible was never a military leader, although he probably had some useful skills, his poor eyesight may well have disqualified him.
Saladin was an excellent leader, and he had an excellent understanding of military matters. He was also willing to negotiate with the enemy.
To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.
She was strong willed and didn't put up with any messing about in her court. She proved a woman could be a good military leader. She was quite pretty and had red hair.
no he is not a good leader
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation. ----- Unfortunately there is no evidence that Yamamoto ever said this. There is a reference link below on this. HOAX - NO PROOF IT WAS EVER SAID. Apparently, there is no proof that this was ever said, that is correct. However, it should be noted that Yamamoto spent time in the U.S., attending Harvard for two or more years. He spoke fluent English and had a keen understanding of the industrial capabilities of the United States. He did not want war with the U.S. for this, and possibly other reason. Therefore, while he may not have made this now-famous quote, it is likely that he may have believed it, therefore being a good person to attribute it to.