At the head of an army, nothing is more becoming than simplicity.
Leave the fishing-rod, Great General, to us sovereigns of Pharos and Canopus. Your game is cities and kings and continents.
Thus the skilful general conducts his army just as though he were leading a single man, willy-nilly, by the hand.
The Army needs leaders the way a foot needs a big toe.
The expert in battle seeks his victory from strategic advantage and does not demand it from his men.
A statesman who shakes the fruit trees of his neighbors - to dislodge the worms.
If officers desire to have control over their commands, they must remain habitually with them, industriously attend to their instruction and comfort, and in battle lead them well.
If you go back into military history, the person who's leading the troops ought to be in with the troops and not just standing on the backline sending them into battle.
He led his regiment from behind. He found it less exciting.
The leaders who we admire who have been able to bring great change in the past - Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela - they're all inspirational religious leaders and smart tacticians. It would be nice to find the Muslim Gandhi, wouldn't it?
In order to get big things done, sometimes, presidents have to be deft at moving the pea around under the shells.
The profoundest truth of war is that the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men.
