Leadership styles has been investigated and studied for many years. Various analyses have been completed over many centuries regarding military leaders the most. Figures such as: General George S. Patton; President George Washington; Hannibal, the famed Punic general; Sun Tzu, author of “The Art of War”; Alexander the Great, King of Macedon; Julius Caesar (100 BC-44 BC), Roman military leader and dictator; Erik the Red (colonizer of Greenland); William Wallace, Scottish Knight and freedom fighter; General Colin Powell, and many more were studies and contrast drawn.
Some commanders have been classifies as dictators, such as Julius Caesar. His leadership style closely matched that of King Richard the III. One could say that Richard III was a ruthless dictator also. Comparatively, Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by his own men. King Richard III had his own men stabbed to death. Caesar was ruthless and had people put to death; likewise Richard III was ruthless and had many put to death. Julius Caesar and Richard III were not people person leaders, and they failed to demonstrate the style of leadership to be an effective and efficient people person leader and commander.
On the other hand, Richmond of Lancaster could be compared to General Colin Powell. He demonstrated the skills of a genuine leader, one who is able to communicate effectively and efficiently with his staff and soldiers. In effect, General Powell and King Richmond have a lot of leadership styles and traits in common. As a result, their leadership traits made them successful.
Comparatively, Richmond led his forces to success over Richard III; likewise General Powell led his forces to success in various encounters. On the other hand, Richard III led his forces to disaster against Richmond. Their leadership style certainly affected their outcome on the field of battle. Richmond forces did not fear him and they had faith in him; alternatively, Richard III forces feared and did not trust him. Richmond of Lancaster forces could communicate with him earnestly; Richard III commanders could not, because they feared their heads would be next on the chopping block or a sharp knife stuck in their backs.
In summary, one could say that Richmond of Lancaster was an effective leader of his men; likewise Richard III was a fearful leader of his men. As a result, their leadership styles had a story to tell in winning and losing. Richmond also had a mission of justice and mercy; Richard III has a mission of injustice and to be unmerciful. In the end, justice and mercy won over injustice and the unmerciful; thus, Richmond became King Richmond and united the divided Lancaster and York and created the Tudor dynasty, while Richard, the fearful dictator, turned up dead and buried.