# data[].attributes.body
General Pershing studied at the United States Military Academy (also known as West Point) where he later served as a tactical officer.

He then later fought in the Spanish-American War

The army General Perishing was given for World War I was largely untrained (and the little training they received was often condensed into a short period of time). General Pershing also had to worry about making sure the United States military technology (such as arms, ammunition, and other equipment) was up to par with what would be required in a new, more advanced, military front.

# data[].attributes.body
He was sometimes a bit too stubborn on some points and did not necessarily understand how developments in warfare would affect his strategic ideal of open warfare and as such paid with heavier casualties than otherwise.

# data[].attributes.body
September 19, 2022
HS315

# data[].attributes.body
General Pershing was a key figure in WW I (especially regarding America's role in the war). Whether he was a great military leader is debatable. Even if he were not a great military leader, he certainly had other attributes that would potentially qualify him as great in other areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Pershing was known to be a very good listener. One account states: "Pershing, who already believed that Silbert was unfit for command, berated him for the sloppiness of [an] exercise and the inability of the division staff to organize and improve the unit’s training. As Pershing stomped off to his car, Marshall tried to explain the division’s situation and the practical reasons for the unit’s poor showing. When Pershing angrily turned away, Marshall grabbed the general’s arms and heatedly, but logically, made his unit’s case....Marshall’s moral courage and skills as a staff officer soon landed him a key spot on Pershing’s staff."

He understood the politics of War "John J. Pershing clearly understood this requirement and held the greatest political skill required of American generals: knowing when to keep his mouth shut."

# data[].attributes.body
General Pershing was very strict (which is often necessary to maintain discipline among subordinates). His method of doing so, however, brought about such fear in his subordinate commanders that they began to micromanage their subordinates and "Ironically, some commanders went as far as to prevent their more talented junior leaders from attending needed technical schools because of 'the danger to themselves of being relieved of command for some error made by the less efficient officers.'"

Also, "Pershing accepted casualties because he could, and his enemy could not". Tactically, it may be good to do that, but it is certainly not the mark of a great leader. It is very much the opposite of leading from the front and caring for your soldiers. It becomes a very sad world when the soldiers (who are human beings) are treated as mere pawns or poker chips. As something that one can risk and is of little consequence to lose.

# data[].attributes.body
General Pershing stuck to his guns on many of the core issues that both the United States and he himself believed. One such issue was whether or not the US soldiers would amalgamate with other forces. General Pershing held fast and did not allow the foreign powers to force him to join the US soldiers with various French and UK armies.

He also managed to help whip the U.S. army (and especially the commanding officers) into shape and gaining respect for the U.S. Military in Europe.

# data[].attributes.body
General Pershing was good at some things and not so great at others. He was a great leader, but not necessarily from a military perspective. He was a bit too far removed from his soldiers to be considered a great military leader, but he certainly knew how to manage his subordinates and his allied officers of similar rank to himself. One might say that he was not a great military leader, but a great military manager.

One decision he made was to split the U.S. AEF into two armies, each commanded by its own officer with him commanding the officers because he wouldn't be able to manage his forces on the lower levels and still keep the bigger picture in focus. This was definitely a step in a more "managerial" direction because now he was even more so distancing himself from his men.

# data[].attributes.body
General Pershing certainly accomplished much in his role in WW I but he can hardly be considered a great military leader in the same sense as Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte. He could, however, be considered a great military manager. Nevertheless, we can learn many lessons from General Pershing that are still applicable in the military, business, and day-to-day life. Especially notable was his staunchness.

# data[].attributes.body
Gabel, C. R., & Willbanks, J. H. (2012). Great Commanders. Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/GreatCommanders.pdf

History.com, John J. Pershing. (2018, August 21). HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/john-j-pershing

Reed, L. (2017, November 9). 11 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About John J. Pershing. News.unl.edu. https://news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today/article/11-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-john-j-pershing/

Zabecki, D. T. (2018). Racing Headlong. Military History, 35(1), 30–39.