Who was the last monarch or other head-of-a-state who personally

>>2321323
Nicholas II

>>2321323
King of Jordan recently.

>>2321323
Why isn't this more common nowadays?

No leader should be immune from the pain he expects his soldiers to face. Might make war more uncommon.

>>2321337
On what campaign?

File: BismarckundNapoleonIII.jpg (242KB, 905x565px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 905x565px

Napoleon III and Wilhelm I both accompanied their armies into battle at the Battle of Sedan in 1871. They didn't exactly lead any charges, and most of the direction of the battle was delegated to the general staff, but they were both personally present at the front.

This was the last time any serving western monarchs saw action on the front.

More recently, I'm sure some African warlord 'head-of-state' has fought in a street fight with an AK or something.

>>2321558
>1871
I meant 1870 my bad.

File: wp-1450887179668.jpg (1MB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1125px

The Lion of Judah

>>2321343
Was he actually the acting commander of the army? I know that many nobles (like prince William of England) even today have some military experience.

>>2321353
Nicholas II was present on the Eastern Front of WWI

>>2322118
As an actual commander or just visiting the troops?

>>2322145
a full frontline commander

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/russia_tsarincommand.htm

needless to say he directly contributed to the disastrous campaigns of 1915 until command was given back to Brusilov.

>>2321323
1940, when Charles de Gaulle directly commanded a failed takeover of pro-Vichy Dakar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dakar

>>2321323
If de Gaulle doesn't count, Chiang Kai-shek also commanded on the front lines while he already was the president of China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai

>>2321348
Because it would be fucking stupid? Why would you put the head of your command and control element of your organization in the least insulated place possible?

>>2321323
Ho Chi Minh maybe?

>>2323650
This, commanding in the front lines made sense before the era of instant communication, when your men needed to see you to carry out new orders.
Although I can certainly agree that the people that send others to die should see the consequences.

>>2321348
King George VI served in the Royal Navy at the Battle of Jutland in WW1 (though before he was king). Prince Philip (the Queen's husband) served in WW2 as a naval officer, Prince Andrew (one of the Queen's sons) served in the Falklands War, and Prince Harry has served in Afghanistan. Prince William was supposed to serve in Afghanistan as well, but he's second in line to the throne so instead he became a search and rescue pilot. Prince Charles was in the military but wasn't involved in any wars. The Queen herself was a mechanic in during WW2.

It's just too dangerous for monarchs to be personally in combat today.

File: IMG_1908.jpg (48KB, 346x536px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 346x536px

>>2321323
>military doesn't allow him to go to Iraq because of potential danger to him and his fellow soldiers
>"ay mate, why don't you just secretly drop me off in Afghanistan lol"
>"fuck it, sure."
Based

>>2323925

gotta hand it to that little homo, he was determined to walk the walk

Fidel Castro in Bay of Pigs.