What is the necessity of leadership? In a sense, it is for the basics of protection, however, it is not productive to reduce leadership down to mere “protection”, one who commands and army, and while this is necessary, the sovereign is as much of a commander, a diplomat, and a collaborator as much as he is the vicar of ideology. It fundamentally affirmed the banality of the masses as a fundamentally skittish, obedient herd, as documented by many, such as Mosca, who said “In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority.”, and this fact is evidenced by the matter that every society in history, without any exemption from this phenomena, as the ability of the few to collaborate in the pursuit of ideology, societal maintenance, and cultural curation in this idea subordinate to maintenance. The truth is that society is constructed in the conscious effort of sovereigns who construct the first primordial citadels which are toiled and farmed in the mutual welfare of the citadel as the citadel provides indispensable defense to the labor which toils away. And this is the basic common denominator of society: the mutual existence of the classes, lead by the sovereign who provides protection, philosophy, and cultural vitality, as the laborers produce the raw materials, whether directly via feudalism or slavery, which are in equal benefit to the citadel, which benefits the labor, or in a liberal economy, which is indirect to the citadel, but in equal service to the citadel, albeit more efficient and moral. The citadel provides defense of the peoples and an stable culture, and these forces and cultural facets are commanded by the sovereigns, who command the benign, impotent, irreverent, and quite frankly vacuous commoners who are irrational and self-interested, as evident by the fundamental nature of populism, which enchants and entices the banal masses with simple promises and prospects, whether or not they are accurate. In this matter, this freely guides the conclusion the masses are inert, though functional and requisite in their nature. The sovereigns, however, are idealistic in nature, and typically desire to improve society, and this is morally-induced, whether by accuracy in morality, such as in a more theonomic sense, or in a more incorrect delusion of humanism, progressivism, or any other philosophy predicated upon the man-made and deification of humanity. This is in the pursuit of morality, and of civility. Exceptions, such as Manuel Noriega, are in the pursuit of some betterment in a Nietzschean sense, and are more expressedly this “will to power” monolith, and is immutably anomalous, though exceptional nonetheless, and I would further insist the biography of a sovereign is irrelevant in contrast to the important matters of ideas, action in the motions of civilization, whether in court politics, or commanding forth the battles. I would argue the battles and the politics themselves should take primacy in the documentation process, as these are substantive, and influence future events as they inspire sovereigns and spur philosophies to impose by sovereigns, which is necessary in ensuring the telos of moral government and cultural maintenance is sufficiently insured. In conclusion, the sovereign is important in the matters of commanding defense and ensuring the prolonging of society, all within their influences of philosophy, which are consciously and agently imposed upon an irrational, inert masses in a benevolent manner. That is the importance of leadership.