Leaders today don't lead troops into war.

yeah at some point they realized it was a bad idea to so foolishly risk the life of the person running the country

it's only ever a question of practicality within the technology and tactics of the time period anyway
they did it because it made it sense, they don't do it because it makes sense, honor is a lie

>>2412461
>not risking the man with the plan (and potentially decades of experience) is seen as a bad thing
I dun ged it.

>>2412461
No shit. Wars nowadays cover a wide area thanks to advances in logistics, communications, and weaponry which multiplies the capabilities of individual units and soldiers.

Being on the ground as a leader nowadays mean you're just fucking limited to what you're seeing and what is happening around you. In HQ, you're a fucking RTS commander.

>>2412461
I think Churchill fought in the trenches in WW1 after getting demoted for Gallipoli. That or I watched something about Florida rednecks on the history channel.

>>2412461
Tolkien fought in a few wars if I recall correctly.

>>2412461
We have to bring back feudalism desu.

nor did they ever

it was infinitely more common for a leader to get sniped by a crossbow while on top of a rampart than in some one on one honor duel in the middle of the battle

>>2412902
>he doesn't know about Peter II "I Am The King" of Aragon

>>2412765
You are correct. He decided to enlist in the army after his failure.

You probably shouldn't have people in charge of grand strategy in a position where they can get sniped easily. Not to mention grand strategy is much different to tactics on the ground.

>>2412902
>nor did they ever

>>2412461
>implying they ever did

It only happens in hollywood movies senpai

>>2413480
>>2412902

>who is Gustavus Adolphus

>>2412902
>nor did they ever
What the fuck is it with retards always going for the absolutes?

>>2413514
A guy who leads the flanking cavalry, the force least likely to suffer casualties.
And he died on the battlefield, losing his country the war, losing his alliance the war, and losing his religion the war.

His stupidity in leading his army cost his state, his alliance and his fucking faith to everyone.
He lost so fucking much by being a moron larping as a "leader", him and everyone who supported him or even everyone who shared religious views with him.

>>2412478

It's the symbolsim

>Spring Break 2003
>be President George W. Bush
>land in Kuwait
>put on your desert camo and sunglasses
>go way off into the desert
>hop in a Humvee
>drive over nonexistent desert border, leading the first U.S. Armed Forces unit deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom
>Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" plays in the background

>>2413531
>losing his country the war,
How can one man be so dumb as to forget who won the 30 years war??

>>2413538
Wait, didn't the catholics win, or am I mixing it with that other northern war where Sweden lost half its land?

File: 1486110215532.jpg (24KB, 288x252px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 288x252px

>>2413480
>>2412902
Magnus Barfott, Harald Hardrada, Philip II, Francis I, John II, Richard III, John the Blind. Need I go on?

>>2412461
Charles XII of Sweden was the last monarch in the world to personally fight on the frontlines with his troops, something which he believed was of fundamental importance for any leader.

Inspiring as it may have been, however, it was also highly impractical to risk destabilising the country by having the king die on a battlefield in the middle of a war.

>>2413538
No one "won" the 30 year war. It ended more or less in a stalemate where the European borders were redrawn in a few places and it was decided that the princes in HRE would be free to decide their own religion.

>>2413545
You are mixing it up. It was Charles XII's death which led to Sweden losing Finland to Russia and also the Age of Liberty where the parliament grabbed the power and, inspired by England, attempted to reform it into something similar to a republic but with a king as a figurehead.

>>2413583
What about old Nappy?

>>2412902

> nor did they ever

They actually did quite often.

Leaders and nobles died like flies in medieval Europe for instance.

> it was infinitely more common for a leader to get sniped by a crossbow while on top of a rampart than in some one on one honor duel in the middle of the battle

You cannot be this retarded.

>>2413480
>>implying they ever did

> They did.

> It only happens in hollywood movies senpai

It happened constantly.

>>2413547

> Magnus Barfott, Harald Hardrada, Philip II, Francis I, John II, Richard III, John the Blind.

Basically every English commander or king during the Hundred Years war.

Basically every Croat commander during the Turkish Wars

Basically every single crusader commander ever.

Or you know, Alexander.

File: a251b585ca5bfa9e381a37b2317f5ce3.png (260KB, 600x507px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 600x507px

>>2412461
Leaders leading troops into modern war has no value anymore. But if you mean leaders having war experience than in countries that face higher war risks this is pretty common because voters expect this kind of experience, even in a moral level (you have to have a record of risking your life to tell me risk mine).
Many older generation US presidents had such experience (Eisenhower, Kennedy, G Bush). In Israel most Prime minister need to have some kind of exceptional military experience (either being a famous general (Rabin, Sharon, Barak) or at least special ops behind the line aura (Netanyahu).
When military is not a min issue than people revert to business leaders or all kind of "community organizers" which is of course the worse.

>>2413648
Lil' ol' Nappy stayed the fuck away from the front lines.

>>2412917
Literally how can one man fuck up so hard?

>>2413716
Except for that time when he led his troops in a charge against a fortified bridge.

>>2413535
How does that conflict with the post you quoted? It's not like GWB ran the country.

>>2413674
>Leaders and nobles died like flies in medieval Europe for instance.
Not him, but other deaths generally outweighed in-battle deaths.

>>2413743
*Tips flouride filter*

>>2413772
>I don't understand how separation of powers work

>>2413778
>I heard of the Supreme Court and Congress, therefore the POTUS doesn't have power

Jesus christ

>>2413782
>I think the President is like a king but elected :)

>>2413732
sauce

>>2413786
>I think the only way someone can be head of government is to be Monarch

>>2413607
sweden lost finland 100 years after the death of Charles XII

WHY DONT PRESIDENTS FIGHT THE WAR?

>>2413788
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arcole

>>2413812
thanks

>>2412461
Look up Rwanda.
>>2412742
Also, the way most of modern society works means that you don't have "one leader to lead them all". Obviously no leader has ever actually done everything, but with today's massive countries and massive bureaucracies this is the case much moreso.

File: a495oGv_700b.jpg (154KB, 700x1002px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 700x1002px

>>2412461
>prime ministers and heads of state are expected to fight each other for their countrys benefit.
>yearly presidential battles are held between countries, the victors getting land and wealth from the losers

>>2413809
Because they're like the sun.

File: charlemagne.jpg (480KB, 1517x2048px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1517x2048px

>>2412902

>>2412765
Prince Harry fought in Afghanistan too

>>2414572
And Prince Andrew served in the Falklands.

Why does everybody forget about BASED NELSON leading his naval engagements?

>>2412461
the more long range and explosive weaponry gets, the farther away from the battle the most important people will have to be. If they were just fighting with swords he would just need to stay maybe 20 feet back

>>2413547
Just to add,
Pyrrhus of Epirus, Wladyslaw III, Trajan Decius, Herennius Etruscus, Gordion, Valens, Karolus Rex, Brian Boru.

There are a shit ton. That anon is retarded,

>>2412461
No one "leads troops into war" anymore because it's no longer ancient times and we have better more sophisticated ways of organizing troop maneuvers than "everyone follow the guy with the flag".

Placing your strategic leadership into a tactical situation is pretty much the worst allocation of resources you can imagine in modern times.

>>2413793
Even in the executive branch Bush was a puppet. Dick Cheney had more power than him.

>>2412461
omg can modernity get even more degenerate?

>>2415229
Yeah but notice: they are almost all badass memorable kings that won glory and will forever be remembered.

>>2415229
>Trajan Decius
> killed by a random arrow in battle

yeah that anon is dumb as heck. clearly he is wrong when saying that dying by a rare crossbow shot is more common than dying in a 1 on 1 duel in front of two armies

good proof everyone

Patton?