Guts vs. Griffith as leaders

[hbi2k]

WARNING: RAMBLE AHOY.

I find it pretty interesting, now that Guts has had his new party of followers around for a while, to see how he compares with Griffith as a leader.

I mean, one of the very first things we're shown about Griffith as a character (after seeing him as Femto the Douche in the Slug Count arc, that is) is that he's this great leader of men. The interesting thing to me is that he even back in the Golden Age he was viewed by his followers as a man apart, always in a different class from those who followed him. I think Corkus was the one who said it most clearly: Griffith is special, Griffith is different, you can never be like Griffith. Griffith inspired fanatical loyalty in his followers, but it was only ever Guts who was able to parse out the qualities that made him great-- in this case, his drive and direction specifically-- and aspire to have those qualities himself. The rest of the Hawks wanted to follow him, but they seldom wanted to BE like him, or even considered it as a possibility.

In fact, Griffith never seemed to care much about the personal growth of his followers at all. He rewarded competence, of course: he wouldn't have gotten very far as a military commander if he hadn't. But his M.O. always seemed to be more to seek out those who already had qualities that were valuable to him rather than to develop those qualities in the followers he already had. Guts was already a powerful warrior when he joined the Hawks, Judeau already good with his hands and at stealth, Pippin already a tank. The only real exception here is Casca, but there's no indication that Griffith had any kind of personal involvement in her training and development as a warrior and a leader.

More than that, Griffith seems to actively encourage his followers to be dependent on him. Think about in that early Golden Age battle, just after the time skip, in which Guts charges off on his own against the Black Rhinos and Casca gets all mad at him for doing so. When Guts brings it up with Griffith, Griffith shrugs it off, saying, "I drew up those plans with your propensities in mind." He could have taken that opportunity to try to develop Guts into a more seasoned warrior better able to make proper judgments on the battlefield, but instead he decided, this is the guy I have to work with, these are his strengths and weaknesses, and I'm going to use him in such a way as to get maximum help from the former and minimum hindrance from the latter. The implicit message to Guts: trust me to do your thinking for you. Don't think for yourself: trust that if you follow me, everything will turn out all right.

Now think of how Guts is with his own followers. They're drawn to him because of qualities in him that they feel they can develop in themselves by being close to him. With Isidro, it's his swordsmanship; with Farnese, it's his determination in the face of despair. They don't think, "Here's this godly king among men, I must serve him." They think, "Here's this guy with these traits that I lack. If I follow him, I can learn from him and become more like him."

Think of the way Guts is when he trains Isidro to fight. He specifically avoids spending too much time drilling him in specific techniques, instead encouraging him to be more self-directed in his training, to think critically about his fighting style and adapt it to his own strength and weaknesses. He's not encouraging Isidro to become dependent on him, but the opposite: he wants to teach him to be more independent and strong within himself.

I'm also thinking of the way they deal with praising and encouraging their followers. Griffith is always very complimentary, even flattering, toward Guts. He goes on and on about how magnificent his sword is, how admirable he finds him as a warrior. Sure, Casca maintains that this was an exception, that Griffith is seldom this complimentary, but I think the subtext is that the was never that complimentary toward HER. The truth is, as far as I've seen Griffith will shamelessly flatter anyone to get what he wants from them, and he just plain never felt he had to do so to get what he wanted out of Casca.

Guts' praise comes fewer and farther between, but it means that much more when it comes. When Farnese briefly loses track of Casca, endangering both of them, Guts doesn't rebuke her or fly into a rage, he just looks at her with disappointment in his eyes, and he knows that this is enough. He also knows that she is properly ashamed of her failure, and that that shame will be a better teacher than anything he can do. He trusts that it will make her more careful in the future and continues to entrust her with Casca's safety, and later when he tells her, "I do appreciate what you do for us," it's not just lip service. He values her contributions to the group.

Likewise, when he gives Isidro an important job to do and tells him, "I'm giving you this job because I know you're up to it. Prove me right," he's backing up his words with actions. He knows the significance to a young man like Isidro of being given a man's responsibility, and he knows that displaying that trust will be worth much more than empty flattery that a smart kid like Isidro would see right through.

So yeah, that was just some random rambling on an interesting contrast I noticed. Griffith is built up as this great leader on a large scale, but ultimately I think against all odds it's Guts who's matured into a true leader of men. Thoughts?

[War Machine]

Aside from the things you already mentioned, it's important to note that Guts doesn't have an army, his followers have much more interaction with him because it's a small group. While Guts has to rely heavily on his group for support, Griffith could easily ignore whole sections of his army and not even care about the lonely soldier at the front.

I think a big reason why Griffith began to detach emotionally from his army was the incident of the kid who died following him, which he's reminded about by the God Hand during the eclipse. That was the catalyst for him becoming cold hearted toward his followers, he didn't want to become attached to anyone because he couldn't deal with the pain of losing them, he couldn't deal with the thought of losing anybody. Another reason why Griffith felt so betrayed when Guts left, he was pretty much the only person he'd bonded with in spite of all his efforts.

Now I'll refer you to volume 13, chapter 82 God of the Abyss, page 66:

[hbi2k]

Aside from the things you already mentioned, it's important to note that Guts doesn't have an army, his followers have much more interaction with him because it's a small group. While Guts has to rely heavily on his group for support, Griffith could easily ignore whole sections of his army and not even care about the lonely soldier at the front.

Very true. I was thinking more in terms of Griffith's leadership of those closest to him, the ones that the had the most personal contact with and who seemed to be directly under his command and/or were around since the early days of the Hawks (Guts, Casca, Corkus, Judeau, and Pippin). Obviously the logistics of commanding a large army meant that later on, there was no way that he could have a personal relationship with everyone.

[Istvan]

I think it's also interesting to note an important similarity in their leadership styles. With the exception of Guts, Griffith never asked any of his army to follow him. All of them chose, on their own, to follow him because they believed in him, were grateful to him, etc. Likewise, Guts didn't ask any of his group to follow/accompany him, they all did it because they saw something in him that made him worth following. There are a lot of little things like this that we see throughout which indicate to me that Guts' character and beliefs really were largely shaped and influenced by Griffith. Of course, it's also important to note where these points diverge from Griffith, as when he goes to get Farnese back. I can't imagine Griffith ever trying to influence someone who chose to leave him (again with the exception of Guts) to come back; because of the way that Guts does care for his companions (as friends, not just tools) he did.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[hbi2k]

I think it's also interesting to note an important similarity in their leadership styles. With the exception of Guts, Griffith never asked any of his army to follow him. All of them chose, on their own, to follow him because they believed in him, were grateful to him, etc. Likewise, Guts didn't ask any of his group to follow/accompany him, they all did it because they saw something in him that made him worth following. There are a lot of little things like this that we see throughout which indicate to me that Guts' character and beliefs really were largely shaped and influenced by Griffith. Of course, it's also important to note where these points diverge from Griffith, as when he goes to get Farnese back. I can't imagine Griffith ever trying to influence someone who chose to leave him (again with the exception of Guts) to come back; because of the way that Guts does care for his companions (as friends, not just tools) he did.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

'Course, I also can't imagine a situation in which Griffith would NEED to go out of his way to get anyone buts Guts back, because Guts is the only one to ever willingly leave him (unless you count some of the Raiders who wanted to follow Guts after Griffith was crippled). Still, fair point.

[The Prince]

Perhaps it would be better to say that Guts has assumed the role as a mentor of sorts to his merry band of followers, where Griffith probably would never have had the oppurtunity in his role as the commander of an army many thousands strong. Even if he could he'd likely find doing so as something beneath him.

But just because Griffith was detached from those serving under him from a personal standpoint, doesn't make him any less of a leader.....just a cold, calculating one.

[Istvan]

Perhaps it would be better to say that Guts has assumed the role as a mentor of sorts to his merry band of followers, where Griffith probably would never have had the oppurtunity in his role as the commander of an army many thousands strong. Even if he could he'd likely find doing so as something beneath him.

But just because Griffith was detached from those serving under him from a personal standpoint, doesn't make him any less of a leader.....just a cold, calculating one.

I think it had more to do with personal philosophy than anything else. Even when Griffith was leading a group of only a couple hundred (or less) I can't see him acting in that manner. My impression/understanding was that Griffith believed the stuff he said about the nature of dreams, each persons right to follow their own path, etc. Thus he allows others to follow him, but he never asks them to. Similarly, he understands that it is sometimes necessary to destroy other people's dreams in order to pursue his own dream, but he doesn't like doing it, it pains him (as we saw in the Caska flash-back when the kid died). So it would never occur to him to stop someone who wanted to leave him, with the exception of Guts.

[rubberchicken]

I think it's also interesting to note an important similarity in their leadership styles. With the exception of Guts, Griffith never asked any of his army to follow him. All of them chose, on their own, to follow him because they believed in him, were grateful to him, etc. Likewise, Guts didn't ask any of his group to follow/accompany him, they all did it because they saw something in him that made him worth following. There are a lot of little things like this that we see throughout which indicate to me that Guts' character and beliefs really were largely shaped and influenced by Griffith. Of course, it's also important to note where these points diverge from Griffith, as when he goes to get Farnese back. I can't imagine Griffith ever trying to influence someone who chose to leave him (again with the exception of Guts) to come back; because of the way that Guts does care for his companions (as friends, not just tools) he did.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I think there's probably another big divergence that you haven't mentioned, because the two situations you're comparing here (Guts leaving Griffith vs. Farnese leaving Guts) aren't exactly equal.

Guts is important both to the Hawks (as its raid leader) and to Griffith (as a friend, or at least as close to a friend as anyone has come). When Guts leaves the Hawks, it's solely for his own sake; he wants out so that he can go find himself. Griffith is willing to kill Guts rather than let him leave.

Farnese is important to Guts because Casca trusts her, and so long as she's around, he doesn't have to worry about Casca wandering off or refusing to come along with him. When Farnese eventually leaves the group, it's for the group's sake. As Guts says in the inn at Vritannis, she isn't giving them a boat as payment for letting her go; she's leaving in order to get them a boat. But as far as we can tell, she wants to stay - she likes taking care of Casca, she wants to continue learning from Guts, and she really enjoys being treated as a human being, rather than a knight or a noblewoman. Guts goes to bring her back - but if she'd really wanted to leave, can anybody picture him forcing her to come along against her will, or (for that matter) considering killing her the way Griffith considered killing him?

I really can't picture him doing that, even though it would mean that he'd have trouble with Casca once again (Schierke just doesn't seem to be up to it). At least as far as I'm concerned, that's another core difference between the two of them - Griffith will place his own wishes and the requirements of his master plan first, above the desires of his followers, while Guts seems more likely to respect his followers' wishes (possibly because he sympathizes with their position, or because he's used to going it alone and recognizes that having people supporting him is a luxury, rather than something he's entitled to).

[Aetherfukz]

Very nice and interesting thread. I think it pretty much points out why Guts is the protagonist of the story and not Griffith. And why everyone wants to be badass like Guts.

Likewise, when he gives Isidro an important job to do and tells him, "I'm giving you this job because I know you're up to it. Prove me right," he's backing up his words with actions. He knows the significance to a young man like Isidro of being given a man's responsibility, and he knows that displaying that trust will be worth much more than empty flattery that a smart kid like Isidro would see right through.

While Guts is Isidros mentor first, I think there's also some father-son relationship (at least the hint of it) going on. I think Guts sees a bit of himself as a child in Isidro. Young lad with a sword wanting to prove his abilities to the world? That was pretty much true for both of them at some point in time. And Guts had an asshole for a step-father. While he did give him food and shelter, Gambino was a child-selling, child-beating, bastard who only ever cared about himself and maybe his girl. I think Guts does to Isidro now what he would have wanted Gambino to do way back. To trust him. And that's pretty much the best thing he can do to Isidro, because as you said, saying stuff like "You've been entrusted because you can be trusted." just ignites the sparks in the boy to do great stuff.

[Born_Loser]

I always found it funny, that while Griffith was this giant leader of men following his dream to the end, crushing anyone else' dream that gets in his way. It was Gutz persuing his dream that crushed Griffith's dream.
Griffith uses his allies, uses them hard like a Craftsman wrench. Just look at all the dirty things he had Gutz do, "Assinate these people. Kill those guys. Kidnap this girl. Set that building on fire."Griffith demanded this of Gutz without much thought or care for Gutz, of course, Gutz did all this without much of a care for himself.
Now, look at the way Gutz treats his allies. He is constantly telling them to stay back and not do anything.
I think it's crucial to look at the time Gutz was a leader of an army, and compare that to how Griffith lead.
There were only maybe two times where Gutz was leader, when he was the leader of the Raiders, and after he comes back to the Band.
Griffith while capable, lead through Charisma, through Command. While he did fighting on the field, he was generally the kind of leader who would watch and direct the battle. His victories inspired his men, and the few times he leaps into combat, he inspires them that much more.
Gutz now, he leads through example. He is always the first to draw blood, cutting a way for his comrades charge. He is then the last to withdrawal, making sure every one of his men is running to safty before pulling back himself. Griffith did come back to save Gutz, and only Gutz. Gutz would have rode back for anyone.
Griffith also seems to favor the Easy way. Gutz, tends to favor the Hard way.

[Rolos]

I don't know if you have read Machiavelli, but the way you are putting it, Griffith would be like a Fox Prince, and Gutts like a Lion Prince.
I would have to disagree on that.
I am currently drunk, making it pretty hard for me to write coherently.
I will edit this post in, say, 3 hours, and then I will elaborate on why I disagree with you.

Edit: Make it 5 hours. Ushuaia rules!

[turkey]

I would like to point out the part when they are in Windham, and Guts points out what to look for in a good employer, commander. In his mind, a good leader is someone that cares for his troops, and is one of them, not just an employer. He makes the distinction that it is different fighting as a for your buddies and fighting as a pawn for someone who doesn't value your life beyond your use in battle. Guts treats the sacred bond between brothers in arms as something that is not to be ignored by commanders. Griffith, perhaps due to the need to sacrafice men and use them as pawns, began to treat them as just that pawns. The exception to this was Guts, I think he genuinely cared for him, and really, for no particular reason. He just did. Caska and the others he knew on a more personal basis, he likely had some feelings for, but he struggled to keep himself from caring too much for them. He was also a more sinister person than let on, from first impressions. Guts also enjoys that sinister nature somewhat. Griffith may have just have seen Guts as the new toy, if he was really that evil, but then again, he may have cared for his troops.

I also want to say that Gatts seems to be a very sharp person. When he tells Isidro that if you don't use your head, no matter how good you are, you will get killed if you don't pay attention to what you are doing. Gatts is very sharp and observant, and pays attention to detail. He doesn't get carried away (usually ) in combat and keeps an open mind. This is also a favorable trait of Griffith, he can focus his undivided attention at the situation at hand.
Griffith even acknowledges Gatts progress as a warrior when they have their winter duel, he notes how focused he is, despite fighting the person that he treated as a friend and fought with for all those years.


They both were successful in earning the respect and admiration of their men, so, they are clearly both capable leaders. Griffith fights because it is a means to an end, or so I think. Guts fights for personal glory and to prove to himself that his actions are not in vain.