Hack them down! 
Once military units get above a size, leading from the front becomes…counterproductive.
Lieutenant-Colonel ‘H’ Jones VC, of 2 Para, was killed charging an Argentine machine gun postion in the Falklands.
Yes, but you also need to be able to command and have those commands obeyed. If you were commanding a mob of peasants and a handful of glory-crazed aristos then you needed to be within easy earshot of them to command. If you had good couriers and a well-disciplined and well-structured army you could do what Napoleon, Caesar and the like did and do it from a convenient hilltop. However, even they sometimes needed to intervene directly if we are to believe their history/propaganda.
Not all battles were fought by large, organised armies, and the whole concept of graduated ranks of officers was at one point a radical innovation too.
Above the rank of Major General, Generals don’t actually lead armies. Corps Commanders and Army Commanders and Theater Commanders organize campaigns through the operations of a staff. They see to it that the proper forces are at hand and in reserve, assure (or try to) that adequate supplies are available and can be delivered and see that all of the endless minutia required in such undertakings are properly accounted for and handled. In short, they are executives rather than operational commanders.
Starting with Division Commander (Major General) there is at least an opportunity to actually lead on occasion. Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., deputy Division Commander of the 4th Infantry Division, landed with the first wave of assault troops on Utah Beach on D-Day.
Brigadier General Norman Cota, deputy Division Commander of the 29th Infantry Division, landed with the assault troops on Omaha Beach and is widely credited with getting movement off the beach started by finally standing up and telling those around him that they either were going to die or they were going to move forward to the overlooking bluffs.
Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, Artillery Commander of the 101[sup]st[/sup]Airborne Division. was on the ground at Bastogne, Belgium during the whole of that unit’s isolation in the Battle of The Bulge. McAuliffe was temporarily in command while the Division Commander Maj. Gen. Maxwell Taylor was temporarily in the US. Talk about luck.
Major General Maurice Rose, Commander of the 3[sup]rd[/sup] Armored Division, was killed at the front line by a German soldier. Rose was well known for being in the thick of the action whenever possible.
And that’s only the ones I know about.
We were always taught that you place yourself where you can best control the action and your troops. It’s also a matter of what type of action is happening. In an ambush, the ambushed party generally assaults without much regard as to where the leader is, since the objective is to lay down supressing fire and leapfrog to the objective. On patrol you have a ‘point man’, who is out some distance from the patrol. You might also have security flankers. The squad leader is not necessarily at the front of the patrol, but rather where he can direct automatic and other weapons fire, if necessary, and keep his rank somewhat obscured by being in the crowd. It makes little sense to have the leader actually run out in front of the pack, since his certain death may cause confusion and disarray. In fact, that type of massed frontal ground assault is generally a thing of the past. Tactics and firepower rule the day.
Quite true. Washington was very often exposed to enemy fire, and had tremendous personal courage. Once when one of his staff commented nervously that the enemy fire was coming a little too close, Washington coolly said something to the effect of, “You may ride back and take shelter if you wish, Colonel.” Of course the colonel didn’t dare.
Washington rode directly between his troops and British infantry at the Battle of Trenton, just as the British were raising their muskets to fire. One of the general’s aides actually covered his eyes, he was so sure that Washington was going to be hit. After the volley, the aide looked and was astonished to see that Washington was uninjured, although many other Continentals were not.
It was, IMHO, no less than providential that Washington survived the war.
Oops. It was the Battle of Princeton, not Trenton.
Right, but you can’t be in earshot of 10,000 men all at the same time. That’s why armies are broken down into smaller units. I have to think even barbarian leaders had lieutenants.
Colonels, sure, but not really “tons” of generals killed (though many were wounded. Something like 10-12 confederate and 15-18 federal generals were killed in battle or received mortal wounds.
That being said, more often than not a division commander was on the front lines leading the men, and this is where the largest portion of deaths reside, more than half in both cases. Also, most of the wounded generals in the civil war were division commanders, rather was corps commanders.
No, barbarian leaders generally didn’t have lieutenants. What they had were vassals, and those vassals had vassals, and so on.
Think of the Iliad. There weren’t any chains of command, there were independent kings and chiefs, all with their own personal troops who were loyal to them personally, not the overlord. The overlord only commands those chiefs who agree to be commanded by him, if they don’t like what he’s doing they’ll back up and go home. And these chiefs are mostly interested in demonstrating that they are Bad Mutherfuckers in front of their men to increase their personal prestige and capturing plunder…weapons, armor, animals, money, slaves, captives for ransom, etc.
Lots and lots of ancient battles really were just as simple as everyone on side A gathers over here, everone on side B gathers over there, insult and throw things at each other for a bit, then RAAAAAAR! Devious strategies would be to hold back a reserve of cavalry to exploit any weak points. The thing is, you just can’t command an ancient army tightly. Sound forward, sound charge, sound retreat are about it. The Romans were able to dominate the ancient world because they were one of the few armies that were capable of following orders on and off the battlefield.
I forget exactly which squabble it was, but one of the classical battles was chiefly noteworthy because of the fact that one general’s cavalry chased off the opposing cavalry and then instead of pursuing them over the horizon in a haze of bloodlust and glory-seeking they followed orders :eek: came back :eek: :eek: and attacked the enemy infantry from behind :eek: :eek: :eek: . This was apparently something that had been discussed as a hypothetical Potentially Good Idea™ for years but no-one had managed to pull it off due to the absolute lack of discipline amonst the (aristrocratic) cavalry.
Believe me, if you read up on how things were done historically you start to think that 50 modern drill sargeants could have conquered the world if transported back a few thousand years.
Just came across a reference to the Battle of Five Forks, in the waning days of the Civil War. Maj. Gen. Phil Sheridan, commanding V Corps, saw Bvt. Maj. Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in the thick of things, leading his troops into battle. “By God, that’s what I want to see!” Sheridan exclaimed. “General officers at the front!”
Not coincidentally, Chamberlain was wounded six times during the war, never fully healed, and died in 1914 of complications from one particularly bad wound.