Back in the day, war generals would fight side by side with their troops on the battlefield. Why does that no longer happen anymore?
In: Other
No.
Before the radio was invented, it was extremely hard to get communication back and forth. So commanders had to be closer. But generals never fought “side by side with the troops”.
We developed radios and other long range communications methods.
Generals have always had to balance their safety and their ability to communicate with and command armies. They rarely ever fought “side by side” they were often a decent ways back from the actual fighting. Not that fair, but rarely if ever leading a charge or something. In ancient times they might be up on a hill overlooking the battle. So they are safe from brave soul with a spear or a well aimed arrow. In the 1700s they might be a few 100 yards back in a tent, safe from bullets and mortars.
As soon as they could communicate from far away thanks to radios there’s no reason to put themselves at risk at all because they can communicate from complete safety.
Generals used to fight alongside troops to inspire and lead, but modern warfare requires strategy and distance. Technology now plays a huge role, making that hands-on approach less practical.
Because being promoted to that point requires years of experience and knowledge that isn’t easily replaceable
To put that in harms way for a single additional soldier is not a good deal at all. Also many top generals are going to be beyond their peak years physically and are unlikely to be as effective as soldiers as they once were.
Also, these generals being on the field make them valuable targets, where you could damage an enemy a lot by taking out one person.
Back in the day this was necessary and less of a problem because:
– War wasn’t as complex so the top end for experience wasn’t as high
– More importantly, we didn’t have long range communications so for a general to know what’s going on and issue orders, they’d realistically need to be close by
There are only some instances of this happening. For example, at the Battle of Agincourt, Henry V did fight with his men-at-arms and participated in hand-to-hand combat. However, this was pretty rare, since most armies did not want their commanders dying on the front line, throwing their troops into chaos. The only reason generals fought closer was because there was no other way to communicate orders.
For a commander to fight with their troops carries the risk of loosing the experience and wisdom those commanders have gained over their lifetime if that person is killed or captured. It also is dangerous in the sense that a captured leader can be coerced to reveal tactical information that can seriously compromise an offensive.
What’s all this ‘back in the day’ bollocks??
you mean the 1980’s?
“In history….”
Even back in the day they typically stayed out of most of the danger. These days you can’t stay safe by just hanging back. Bombs and bullets can take you out no matter where you’re standing
In a top-down system it makes no sense for the highest ranking people involved in a war to ever be at risk. Even protected by highly trained and armored guards, history is full of kings and generals who took a lucky hit and the entire war was lost.
Leaders pretend to fight with their men except in extreme desperation or real confidence that they will crush the other side. It’s PR. But if they are actually at risk, something has gone very wrong.
Look what happened when Russia put their commanders on or near the front lines. They were picked off quickly by Ukrainian snipers and now their mid-level command structures are completely shot (pun not intended, but welcome).
Latest Answers