Having selected the 45 subjects, the authors examine more than 200 biographical sources for 58 socioeconomic, situational, and psychological variables. Presumably, men of similar psychological and socioeconomic circumstances will, in environments with similar opportunities, rise to similar positions. Also, they are highly educated, apolitical, and cosmopolitan, and their fathers have prestigious occupations. Other elements are strong egos, relatively strong deprivation of love or emotional support, economic need, and a tradition of military service. Most critical is an element of opportunity, such as rising nationalism or military crisis.
Biographical sketches comprise the bulk of the study.
Ranging from less than a page to nearly four, short biographies provide opportunity for authorial bias in the selection of facts. Here, one must assume the innate integrity of Rejai and Phillips. Having set theory against evidence, the authors conclude that a military leader should be a native-born male, of a military family, born in a military town or garrison, deprived of relatives or love, vain and egotistical, and nationalist or imperialist. As expected, most leaders lack one or more of the qualifications. Happy childhoods, wealthy parents, no military tradition, and overwhelming modesty are present among the leaders.