Why don't leader of nations go to war with their men anymore? What happen to the days of kings charging head first into battle?
>>3224933
> kings charging head first into battle
mostly a meme, ok they did it once in a while for morale
>>3224933
Because that's retarded
>>3224933
Because snipers currently exist.
Warfare is changed. Putin is 2/3 qualified as green little man though.
That only happened one in a million battles and even then the king was surrounded by an elite guard unit and barely in danger.
Now imagine fat and old Trump with a rifle in the streets of some Middle Eastern town.
>>3224933
>leader of nations go to war with their men anymore?
Stopped with Tito, I think. I'm anti-commie, but that guy was as hard as steel.
Fidel Castro in action at Bay of Pigs
He got some good shots at a ship with the tank gun
Because BROKEN DREAMS SO GRAND!!!!
>>3224933
It's very impractical to have your ruler in the middle of a war.
>>3224933
The Battle of Muret shows what can go wrong when you do that.
>>3224933
Spineless elites who want to live forever. Why would they go with their sacrifices to a place they won't return?
>>3224933
Because it would become a total disaster if that person dies
>>3224933
1) It's not in keeping with the nature of civilian rule in a liberal republic - and most leaders of modern nations at least want to pretend to respect civilian rule.
2) modern crises unfold extremely rapidly. the leader must be able to process information coming in through various personal and electronic means and make rapid decisions. being with the army in a camp somewhere does nothing to make this easer
>>3225046
>Middle Eastern town
If you said 5th Avenue, it'd be pretty believable
As much as I hate commies, I think their leaders have most frequently been in combat in recent histroy.