Why are modern leaders such cowards? They never go to battle

I dunno, OP.

Why don't you lead by example.

>>1770816
The king of Jordan was fighting with his men, i believe he was an attack helicopter pilot

>>1770816
Bush should've accepted Husseins offer to have a one on one and save lives. He was pussy and chickened out. Thanks to that faggot, we have the mess in that region we have today.

>>1770842

Good example.
But you won't see any western leader do that.

>>1770816
>we will never get such a historically authentic movie like alexander again

>>1770816

>Bold leader decides to join his men in the field
>Enemy finds out and snipes him, winning a huge propaganda victory in the process

>>1770886
Was scrolling past, attractive lady made me read your post.

Have a (You)

>>1770816
Yeah, leaders should definitely unnecessarily risk death, potentially leaving the country leaderless and in chaos at the time (war) when it needs strong leadership the most, because muh bravery

>>1770897
This

Its much easier now to just fucking use smart missles and kill leaders.

>>1770903

If the war isn't about their power, but about a cause more important than anyone's life and they're willing to send thousands to their death, why not themselves?

>>1770816
I'm pretty pretty sure 99.99% of ancient/medieval leaders didn't really get into battle.

>>1770886
man fug
>(you)

>>1770907

Concurred.

In order for the leader to stay alive, he would have to be disguised as a regular grunt.

Which would completely defeat the purpose of having a leader in the field to begin with.

>>1770913

Cowardly non-whites sure didn't yes. And when they did it was to oversee the battle. As soon as the odds didn't turn into their favour, they fled, like Darius.

>>1770909
Because they can best serve that cause by using their leadership skills, rather than as a common soldier? Have you ever heard of the division of labour?

File: Salvador_Allende_Gossens-.jpg (20KB, 220x285px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 220x285px

> When was the last time a president or a prime minister or any head of state for that matter joined his men in the field?
Salvador Alende was killed in action during coup d'etat, if this counts.

>>1770917
Or we create battle mechs that can survive them then shit can get real.

File: 123381910.jpg (610KB, 1024x759px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1024x759px

Muhammad al-Badr probably the last one who legitimately fought in war.

>>1770903
Because a country has only one available leader at any given moment and if he dies the country goes into uproar right? You must be a non american to have such a sensitive government.

>>1770886
>480x640
I mean I still fell for it and read your post, but fuck (you) post something bigger next time.

File: valerian.jpg (32KB, 306x448px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 306x448px

>Joining the troops on the front sounds like a good idea to keep morale up!

>>1770926

I love how 4chan glorifies extraversion and lifting, and all things alpha, yet when it comes down to putting those qualities to use and putting your life on the line, it's smart to hide in the corner, be 'pragmatic', and let the battle rage on without you.

File: Jorge_González_Von_Marées.jpg (49KB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 250x333px

>>1770928
>puppets of foreign countries
>not cowards
The Cold War was a mistake.

>>1770966

It actually does.
It's risky, but it changes history.
You know, the thing you people will never belong to because you're all useless normie pussy chasers and nameless marketing dorks at best.
Enjoy being nothing more but a stat in world history.

>>1770978
> Enjoy being nothing more but a stat in world history.
History is a statistic, it isn't like being fluctuation really more meaningful in any sense.

>>1770984

Nice rationalization for being irrelevant.
How many mediocre 6's did you score this week?

>>1770967
there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity

>>1771008

I thought life was all about taking risks?
I guess the only risk you people think exists in life and that needs to be overcome is approach anxiety.

Because people don't really give a shit about martial/masculine virtues any more. I think we've become so saturated in cynical materialism that appeals to romanticism wouldn't even register for most people. I mean, just look at the reactions in this thread. Valor is for rubes, the smart people get the most they can for them and theirs, for the least amount of effort possible.

>>1770994
> Nice rationalization for being irrelevant.
Not everybody who is relevant goes into a pages of history to became self caricature of self for a quick public amusement.

Because logistics and management wins wars now, while field commanders win the battles. War has changed from singular encounters to widespread fronts that push and pull, and need to be balanced to ensure proper management and supply of war material and manpower.
People don't criticize Eisenhower for not being directly on the front, they praise his strategic though

ITT: self-preservation is somehow smart

Go post some Stirner memes on /lit/ you useless navel gazers.

>>1771012
why are you attacking a strawman
in modern warfare there is absolutely nothing the presence of the country's leader could do
therefore there is no point in them being on the battlefield

>>1771040

>War has changed

War never changes.
How many vets return home hating their government? You can't keep sending these men to useless wars for your own gain while sitting back at home never paying any price.
A commander-in-chief on the battlefield would greatly change that.
But I guess we're gonna keep on tapping this shit until it's exhausted.

>>1771059
Except you can.

>>1770816
Do you really think tanks have steering wheels

>>1770816

Turns out, having the guy in charge who knows what is going on and where everyone needs to be, right in the middle of a situation where people specifically want to kill him, is a bad idea.

File: image.jpg (497KB, 2800x2100px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2800x2100px

>>1770859

>>1771179
>>1770842

>high up in the skies fighting against sandniggers with no air defense

Yeah, how brave.

File: 1475354197755.jpg (96KB, 450x495px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 450x495px

>>1771186
(you)

>>1771130
Leo 2s have half wheels for steering i believe.

>>1770816
Leading a country is not the same as leading a military. Think of how much better Germany would have done in World War 2 if Hitler wasn't such a control freak. Also, the world has changed making open conflict more costly. You didn't have the alliances like you do now across the world as well as the interconnected economies.

>>1770967
Its not that so much as a commanders responsibility is to manage the army. It is difficult to manage the army from the front, it is best to remain in a position where you have the best access to the most information and can communicate with those fighting the best. Good generals do take risks, but in different ways from a typical foot soldier.

>>1770816
the issue is not one of cowardice, so much as the changing nature of war, Command of large forces requires some distance from the battlefield and normally a headquarters of some sort, and a leaders role is to be the guiding intelligence of that force not leading from the front where they can be readily killed, thats what junior officers are for. a senior commander can exert a far greater influence over the course of a battle commanding from a safe distance rather than right in the front line

incidently most senior officers were at some point junior officers and willing to risk their lives so cowardice isnt the right description for them.

but for a modern commander to try to lead from the front is normally a bad thing, Redvers buller showed this well enough during the Boer war, trying to go forward and help with a single battery rather than excercising oversight over the whole affair

as for heads of state leading armies or joining their men in the field the belgian and serbian leaders did in ww1 but most heads of states in democracies either have little or no military training

>>1770886
saucee plox

democratic leaders aren't as much leaders as they are readily exchangeable figureheads for the will of the masses

why would you want to go into battle risking your life when you're some guy who begged people to let you pretend to run the country for a few years in exchange for creating more jobs or some banal shit like that

the president doesn't even live in his own house or palace, which really should tell you something about the role he plays

File: Shamil_Basaev2.jpg (20KB, 250x343px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x343px

islamist fundamentalist leader usually still fought on the frontline, which is why most of them died. pic related is a recent example.

File: GG EZ.png (314KB, 315x849px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 315x849px

>>1770816
>Leader fighting on the front lines.
>They die.

File: Xenophon.jpg (87KB, 400x617px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 400x617px

Because the Battle of Cunaxa happened.
>be Xenophon
>join up with around ten thousand other Greek hoplites to fight for a Persian prince that helped Sparta conquer your city so he can usurp his brother cause your friend convinced you to
>you are to march from Greece deep into Mesopotamia
>the Prince and the Spartan expedition leader keep arguing about how the formations are gonna be like cause the Prince wants the hoplites in the center while the Spartan general wants them on the right flank cause of the phalanx having each shield in the left hand and they were afraid that they would end up undefended
>they decide to go with the Spartan strategy
>battle begins
>greek phalanx is crushing the opposition marching all the way to the end of the battlefield and doing a U-turn back again with only 2-3 wounded slaughtering thousands in the process
>literally cannot lose
>as they come back the Persian general loyal to the Prince tells them that he has died
>apparently he decided to mount a head-on charge with his vanguard right into his brothers Royal guard just so he could be the one to claim the kill
>so now you are stuck here in the middle of Mesopotamia on a battlefield where the enemy is fleeing and the guy whom put the entire gig together ended up getting speared by his brothers guardsmen, so you have no claimant to the throne
>even offer the position of King of Persia to the General and say that you will keep fighting, but he turned them down cause "muh royal bloodline"
>what do you do?
>you march on home while being harassed by mountain people, with no food, no allies and even end up in trap where most officers end up killed
>but still managed to write a good book about it and sell it on the market of Athens

>>1770816
>Training for combat your whole life and Riding in full plate with your elite guard thru hordes of unwashed untrained
pesants with only risk being captured and ransomed in mere weeks
vs
>Geting shot at

>>1770816
>Training for combat your whole life and Riding in full plate with your elite guard thru hordes of unwashed untrained
pesants with only risk being captured and ransomed in mere weeks
vs
>Geting shot at

>>1770816
automatic weapons

Im not saying this board is usually not shit but even so this thread is patethic at best. Op has to be underage

>>1770816
Prince William and Harry both got stuck in with the wars there.

Harry was a very keen soldier allegedly and had to be taken off the line when the tabloids printed he was fighting.

To answer OP probably when accurate guns and especially artillery meant to skill and armour didn't increase an individuals odds in battle. In modern war you more often than not never know you died.

>>1771130
They often do.

>>1770816
Because for the first time (for most of the world) modern leaders scale of leadership oversees a vast network of governing organs that it would be stupid to focus on one just for the sake of appearing like a "hands on leader."

In addition, Modern Warfare has forces spread out over a big fucking area as opposed to primitive armies passing messages to each other via written word or visual/audio signals.

You want early examples of this? Very Large Empires. Not Conquest """Empires"" like Napoleon or Steppenegro empires, but long lasting functioning state entities with highly organized bureaucracies. The Emperors of Rome and China rarely led military campaigns themselves. Meanwhile Kings with their manlet states do.

Is Charles V the last European leader to have gone to war, apart from Napoleon?

Didnt the Spanish capture the King of France in one of the Italian wars?

>>1771051
Not that guy, but if a leader thinks his/her reason for going to war is so righteous and so important that they're willing to send thousands to their deaths, surely they should be one of those thousands?
If they truly thought that their cause was worth the risk of peoples lives then shouldn't they be out there fighting for the cause?

>>1770897
This happened recently with that kurdish high rank officer in Ross Kemp's documentary "The Fight Against ISIS". The man died from the headshot from the same ISIS sniper in that docu too.

>>1770816
Because that's fucking retarded

>>1772779
>The Emperors of Rome and China rarely led military campaigns themselves

There were a bunch of soldier emperors, mostly because the legions were where the power truly lied. They just didn't conquer large territories, they were mostly engaged with protecting against raiding tribes and squabbles with the Parthians and Persians, and of course the occasional civil war.

>>1772836
>occasional civil war
>occasional
Whew.

>>1772798
Probably because they believed their cause was worth that much, they'd want to do what was best to advance it, which they could better do by actually leading rather than throwing their life away

>>1770967
>I love how 4chan glorifies extraversion and lifting, and all things alpha
Who does? You must have been browsing too many normie boards.

File: Saddam_Hussein.jpg (41KB, 450x325px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x325px

>>1770816
>When was the last time a president or a prime minister or any head of state for that matter joined his men in the field?

>>1772787
napoleon III was commanding at sedan and was captured, and george II of england commanded at dettingen

and many eurpoean leaders had gone to war before becoming leaders

File: 1425957805282.gif (981KB, 342x239px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 342x239px

>>1772952
>4chan
>Normie Boards

File: Santa Anna.jpg (36KB, 225x291px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 225x291px

I just realized how insane Mexico and Latin American 19th Century Republics were having presidents present as battlefield commanders.

You can't imagine that shit on US presidents.

>>1775132
That's because US presidents are far too important to take a stupid risk like that.

>>1771016
Learn English.

Now I want to see Maximinus bare-knuckle fight Mehmed II.

>"Who's Rome now, huh? Who's Rome now?"

>>1770966
Muh_Julian_the_Apostate.ptsd

Fox News won't tell you this

>>1772443
Simon De Montfort had a hardcore as fuck death.

>>1775012
>/soc/
>not a normie board
???

>>1775132
Roosevelt would probably do that in a heartbeat

>>1770816
Idiot. Who do you kill first in a M&B battle?

>>1770816
Pros and cons of leading

pro: glory and troop morale

cons: the entire state could collapse and war will be lost if the commander dies.

Basically we're not fucking idiots any more.

>>1776011
>some women throw you rocks
>hardcore death

>>1772416
The so called caliph doesn't tho.

>>1771186
>no airdefence
every fucking sandnigger and his camel have access to cheap russkie/chink MANPAD's now