I want to find out from the ENTJ perspective.
I mean there is alot of things wrong with this assumption
I mean there is alot of things wrong with this assumption
Cloud
61 - 76 of 76 Posts
Joined
·
327 Posts
Offtopic but reminding me of following anecdote:
A true great leader was Charles the great (Charlemagne) but people somehow prefer admiring dayflies. :wink:
Best is not related to people who have negative P&L: His successes eventually were ephemeral. Worse: The price paid by France was tremendous: over a million French people died in war (some historian speak of almost 2 million! omitting the people who died during 1789 revolution and the first years of the république); France lost considerable territories overseas; not speaking about finance state, the hatred against France by humiliated European nations and ... oh yes: The creation of the French central bank. :frustrating:
A true great leader was Charles the great (Charlemagne) but people somehow prefer admiring dayflies. :wink:
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
If ISFJs, known as "The Nurturers", are supposedly concerned with being considerate of appropriate social conventions and norms, and strive to create harmonious environments, why do they do really annoying things like necroposting almost 3 year old threads in other people's subforums?
Joined
·
1,738 Posts
He probably had some XNTJ teachers/counselors
They probably had some XNTJ teachers/counselors
Waterloo isn't a good example as it was knife-edge in terms of predicting the outcome (Napoleon's victory over Prussia at Ligny caused a Prussian retreat to Waterloo, General Blucher arrived just in time (within 1 hour) when Wellington's center was ready to collapse under a french charge).
Waterloo is rather a formalization of the consequences following the battle of Trafalgar (Waterloo could have been won, but Napoleon would still lose the war), caused in part by Pierre Charles's refusal to sail to Naples under superior admiralty orders (see Napoleon unable to control his generals), ultimately permitting engagement with Lord Horatio Nelson (ESFP) (fewer in number / but with more experienced captains in the fleet) thus resulting in a decisive British naval victory, and ending any real threat to Britain's economic foundation in trade (enabling sustainable resources to fund anti-France wars).
Napoleon had a flawed strategy of not winning allies post-conquering of territory, but was diplomatically clever in terms of negotiation, and incredibly logistically efficient for his time. It'll probably be interest to study Talleyrand's perspective that Napoleon sought to expand France further than it's capacity, and Napoleon's oppressive treatment of Prussia and Austria after the treaty of Tisilt was damaging to the endgame, he later defected and become instrumental in getting good concessions for France at the 1814 Treaty of Paris.
I'm not about to do an essay, so here's some poor quality but informative citations befitting an off-hand forum post.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
https://battleswarriors.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/waterloo-wellington-vs-blucher/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Charles_Villeneuve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand-Périgord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1814)
Joined
·
974 Posts
Altough your point is really valid; about waterloo being a consecuences of past events,in terms of tactical and general strategy i think Wellington was superior in that battle.Why?Welling had read the battle field better,keep in mind there was a heavy rain the day before so there was moud in every single part of the field and the artillery had not been as effective as usual(Napoleon's important part of his general strategy);Napoleon did nothing about it,zero adaptation, meanwhile Wellintong took advantage of that situation.Also,as far i know, Napoleon had some specific moments (chances) when the batttle momentum was in his favour and did nothing about it. If you consider only the tactical and strategic side of that battle Wellington was superiorduetofield"sensing" and adaptation.Keep in mind my opinion is focused on the battle not on thewar.
I have read and accept your insight as correct. My earlier post doesn't give Arthur Wellesley enough credit for creating the chances that he did (and his battle record). I guess the argument can be made that a non-critical battle can still highlight Napoleon's weakness enough to also make the point.
p.s. I missed the 'and if Si users are just dumb people' premis, obv few would agree with this, but fulfilling one's duty (for the English to hold ground) is likely a relevant strength despite Arthur beginning to doubt that Blucher would appear.
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
As a history student sometimes a question comes to mind, what were the types of some of history's greatest but most ruthless conquerors? The people who would beat the enemy's army and then raze their cities to prevent rebellions again? Conquerors like Timur, Genghis Khan and Stalin (granted, he wasn't good at military affairs like the other two but his method were similar)/ Were they a very hardcore, ruthless end justify the means ENTJ or ESTJ, or something else? Apparently Timur and Stalin (who I think was ENTJ) were both inspired by Genghis Khan, and Saddam Hussein (who i believe was ESTJ) was inspired by Stalin.
Joined
·
974 Posts
Check Hitler mbti(or what people usually said about his mbti);you will have a nice surprise.(one of many examples).
tldr:It's not about mbti only, and its not the most important thing.
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Quite a few US presidents have been NTs, a lot of them, inc. Trump I believe have been/ is SJ. SJ's seem to be drawn to and aspire to the Executive position. They want order and control, to keep traditions in place - they don't like chaos and change upsetting their idea of security and wealth and possessions...
In Keirsey's Please Understand Me II, he has NT's down as Aspiring to (seems a funny thing to put but) Wizard... bec. Rationals value the strategic intellect so highly, tend to take as their idol the technological wizard, especially the scientific genius.
He has ENTJs down as Fieldmarshals rather than Executives.
In Keirsey's Please Understand Me II, he has NT's down as Aspiring to (seems a funny thing to put but) Wizard... bec. Rationals value the strategic intellect so highly, tend to take as their idol the technological wizard, especially the scientific genius.
He has ENTJs down as Fieldmarshals rather than Executives.
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
Trump = ESTP
Applying Keirsey: Trump uses tactics. Thinks short-term, rather than having a long-term strategy like an NT. Is also weak on logistics, which is the strong suit of the SJ.
I am a military expert I can say. And to judge a type, you need to understand how leadership function during the time. And I can see people talk about things they have clue: you don't know what you don't know, right ?
I am going to make it simple and straight.
During antique world (before Caesar), the king or General was defined as such, because he was the one to take all the risk: fights on first line and brings his men with him. Alexander the Great, for example once even jumped on a fortified wall alone and fought the enemy, he almost died because his men couldn't pass the wall to rescue him. He was hurt with strong disability on a leg afterwards (he could barely walk by the end of his campaign, as he had more than 20 significant injuries).
THIS IS ESTP leadership style 100%: "I own the crown because I have the biggest balls and I take more risks than other people can bear". Hannibal Barca for instance was the same.
Hitler and all modern Generals: they are planning, controlling and organizing the battle or war, but do not go on first line, they stay in the back. THIS IS 100% ENTJ leadership style.
Napoleon is very tricky: he has the lack of patience of the ESTP (you can see that in his writing, when he drafted his memoirs). And he is in an environment that doesn't really allow him to go in front. But he has the madness of an ESTP. Wellington is very different: he physically went closer to the first lines as opposed to Napoleon, but never lacked of patience. he was the complete opposite, in terms of leadership style. However, both were great at scanning the land to identify opportunities (sensory intelligence).
Coming back to Caesar; because tricky as well. He was ENTJ mostly, but during the last part of his military career, in Spain, he fought in first line with his veteran (from the French campaign); and that was really a ESTP move.
Today, ENTJ are the leaders more than ESTPs, because the leader no longer justifies being the one in charge by its capability to take more risks than the other people.
ENTJ: administrative leadership.
ESTP: leadership based on personal courage.
I am going to make it simple and straight.
During antique world (before Caesar), the king or General was defined as such, because he was the one to take all the risk: fights on first line and brings his men with him. Alexander the Great, for example once even jumped on a fortified wall alone and fought the enemy, he almost died because his men couldn't pass the wall to rescue him. He was hurt with strong disability on a leg afterwards (he could barely walk by the end of his campaign, as he had more than 20 significant injuries).
THIS IS ESTP leadership style 100%: "I own the crown because I have the biggest balls and I take more risks than other people can bear". Hannibal Barca for instance was the same.
Hitler and all modern Generals: they are planning, controlling and organizing the battle or war, but do not go on first line, they stay in the back. THIS IS 100% ENTJ leadership style.
Napoleon is very tricky: he has the lack of patience of the ESTP (you can see that in his writing, when he drafted his memoirs). And he is in an environment that doesn't really allow him to go in front. But he has the madness of an ESTP. Wellington is very different: he physically went closer to the first lines as opposed to Napoleon, but never lacked of patience. he was the complete opposite, in terms of leadership style. However, both were great at scanning the land to identify opportunities (sensory intelligence).
Coming back to Caesar; because tricky as well. He was ENTJ mostly, but during the last part of his military career, in Spain, he fought in first line with his veteran (from the French campaign); and that was really a ESTP move.
Today, ENTJ are the leaders more than ESTPs, because the leader no longer justifies being the one in charge by its capability to take more risks than the other people.
ENTJ: administrative leadership.
ESTP: leadership based on personal courage.
Joined
·
2,083 Posts
That's INxJ leadership. Hitler is mostly typed INFJ. But it seems we're operating on entirely different ideas of the types. Add the uncertainty introduced by entirely different time periods and cultures, this whole question resigns itself to being moot.
As a rule, if you are going to describe yourself as an "expert" in the ENTJ folder, you need to follow it with something to back that up. We are notoriously suspicious of self-appointed "experts" in any capacity and to use the word without verification causes way more doubt about what you posted than if you hadn't used it at all.
Further, As @Stawker pointed out, some of the examples you give have been debated to death and the consensus leans away from where you are going. Hitler leads that particular pack...
Feel free to skip the "simple and straight", most of us here prefer the book to the Cliff's Notes anyway.
Finally, lecturing the ENTJs in the ENTJ folder on ENTJ "leadership style" is presumptuous, don't you think?
Joined
·
974 Posts
You should also consider Napoleon style was based on a "this is what has been working for a long time so lets keep doing that " style in terms of master strategy; why? Every single person was afraid of Napoleons siege style consisting on the best Canon power of the world, at that time; So you got sieged to death with canons and then a fantastic army and Cabalry end the game.Of course, adaptation and ' in the movemnt" decisions can be attacched to Napoleons strategy but the Canon's power opening in the battlefield it was Napoleons trademark, even in his last important battles.
61 - 76 of 76 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
