Did conquerors/leaders like Napoleon, Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great really fight alongside their men? If so...

Just imagine the adrenaline rush of being at the forefront of an army of men willing to give their lives for you.

>Arcole
Pleb tier charge. In Napoleon's very first battle as an artillery commander he led a general assault against a British-held fort position between Toulon and its harbor and got stabbed in the thigh by a bayonet.

Yeah but good commanders wouldn't be in front of an army.

make the republic great again desu

The very fact leaders nowadays just sit at home in their dumbass, suits jerking off over their degree in law, because "lol who else wud make deh decisionz guise :')" is a sign that we have the most worthless leadership.

There was no shortage of such leaders in history either. We just remember the leaders who broke the mold. This is why Napoleon is much more famous than, say, George III.

What is more disturbing isn't so much that we have cowardly leaders, those have always been the norm. The problem is our seeming inability to produce Great Men, which most likely has to do with the moral decay of Western civilization. After all, both French and American revolutionairies agreed that a (democratic) republic can only stand as long as its citizens are virtuous.

desu he still had the rank of Captain in Toulon, it was almost expected of a company-level officer to fight along his men.

Yeah I'd agree with your nuance there.
I haven't seen anyone break that mold recently, or even a few decades ago.
It's even shocking to see a leader die in the field now. That's why Gaddafi getting a knife stuck up his ass was such a shocking image.

>who is Trump?

A corrupt oligarch?

The perfect bait for this thread.

>implying trump would go fight himself

Wew lad triggered the redditors

I always assumed if at all most of it is propaganda, especially Caesar's apparent escapades

He is fighting for himself idiot, he's self funded his whole campaign so far
And he's willing to put his life on the line, 2 assassination attempts so far and he still holds public rallies

Fuck off Octavian

Do we even have fields anymore? It seems like combat has taken such an indirect turn that there's really no place for a napoleon to even be on the field, because fighting is either in cramped, small-scale urban environments, or from kilometers away with tanks and aircraft, or at least that's my impression. In a few decades the human being might be completely obsolete in the battlefield.

War is fought from the desk these days user

Commanded, you mean, someone has to actually do the fighting on the ground.

I just hope this won't negatively effect the spirit of the human race in the long run.

When was the last time we actually had a boots on ground op?
Everything is fought with drones

Do seriously no infantrymen see combat anymore or what? That seems wrong.

>Trump almost assassinated
>"haha he had it coming"

If any Trump supporter were to assassinate Bernie you'd hear the entire left and media shriek how this is the dawn of paramilitary fascist purges.

Yeah the double standards are pretty fucking disgusting

My point was we do still have great men. Great doesnt necessarily mean good, thats subjective, but we all know Trump's name will be remembered for a long time. He's already made enough of an impact to be remembered.
You can argue his methods and his reasoning, but he genuinely cares and stands up for what he believes in despite everyone else. That qualifies as great in my books.

I'm exaggerating of course
But I mean it hardly ever happens now
Its too costly

I kinda wish we never discovered gunpowder and still fought hand to hand
There was a sense of fairness and honour in it

>there was fairness and honour in beating a man's brain out with a rock
>honour

This is why england isn't a superpower.

moreover, even the Greeks knew honor was a joke. No one complained when Thebes was liberated by breaking into the house of the tyrants installed by the Spartans and murdering them, in full armor with spears, while they had but a knife in their defense.

Alright you autist, the point is anybody can point a gun at someone and pull the trigger
Not just anybody can duel with a sword or fire a bow

and?
Not every man can hoist a jack and lay a track. The idea that there's some honor in layman's work is just the strains of Marxism rearing their heads in an aversion to technology.
The only "honor" in a duel is that the two parties agreed when to fight and with what weapons, instead of one just stabbing the other while passing by in the street.

What the fuck are you even trying to say now?
Its really fucking simple
Slashing someones jugular directly in front of him therefore giving him the brief chance to defend himself is objectively more honourable than shooting some unsuspectung cuck from two miles away.
Fighting in a unit shoulder to shoulder with your comrades as you march into the fray is objectively more honourable than dropping a bomb.
Stop sperging out

Alexander was wounded at the siege of Tyre and commanded the cavalry on every major battle.
At Gaugamela his move and charge was the way to open the gap in the persian lines.

there's nothing honorable about killing a man
the greeks knew this

>stop sperging out
the only one having his world views challenged is you, user.

How safely did they play it, do you know? There's no way Caesar put himself on the front for any extended time. Was it a swooping thing? Lead the charge and break back so you can do your job commanding?

First off, you need to understand fighting 'alongside the men' as a commander (maybe a ruler moreso) is kinda something that usually didn't surprise anyone until world war 1.

In the time of Napoleon, the commander, and even Napoleon himself commanded the Reserves. The Reserves were the most important part of the army. They assisted breaking lines, they amplified succeeding lines. Among Napoleon's Marshals many of them were shot and killed even if they were away from Napoleon commanding a battle of their own where they headed the reserves. And this is not mentioning Napoleon's long career, starting as a mere regiment leader, in this area it wouldn't be too surprising for him to even shoot deserters. He was even wounded by being shot among his early battles.

Julius also commanded reserves but in this period the reserves were the greatest unit, and Julius would follow this unit lest not leave himself undefended. He had numerous battles where his entire army was surrounded and he had to fight himself. As dictator however perhaps he didn't quite 'lead from the front' as much as say Alexander and Napoleon when they became in charge.

Alexander even more so being a company leader while in his father's army, there's even accounts where he would run up to the enemy line infront of his infantry to attack himself.

The Greeks were the ones who always spouted on about honor what are you saying
When two royals met on the field the soldiers around them stopped fighting amd watched the duel
They were outraged at the Trojans when the Trojans broke the rules of war and ambushed at night

You are sperging out, my point is very concise and clear but you're being an idiot just for get more (You)s

>there is nothing honourable about killing a man
>if you kill your enemies they win

Trudeau pls leave

It was sometimes the only thing that could be used to rally their men to fight against tough odds.

Caesar for example almost always fought outnumbered by his enemies. He obviously had the advantage of a more disciplined army but there were occassions when he needed to go into the shit and really his men. Same for Alexander who was supposedly the first over a wall during one siege and personally lead his cavalry charges.

Napoleon is a little different but there were accounts of him going into harms way. Shit standing on front of the troops sent to stop him upon his return was just as ballsy.

>He is fighting for himself idiot
As he always has and always will. As far as potential commander in chief, a couple years of ROTC doesn't give me confidence.
Of course that isn't all about what a President does, leading the country is his/her main priority.

So a solid background in governance, a law degree or two, maybe a few years of successful activism would even out this obvious lack of military credentials....except Trump doesn't have any of that shit either.

At the battle of the Sabis one of Caesars legions was getting slaughtered, all of its officers were killed and the soldiers started to flee. So Caesar personally ran onto the front line and started shouting encouragement and instructed them to push back against the Belgae with their shields, which worked. They pushed them back and reformed their line.
Its not something you would do on a whim for sure. A general should be behind his army sending out messengers and sounding the horns, which is how Caesar usually commanded, but in a few rare cases its necessary to go all in.

He has a degree in economics, that doesnt count?

Hillary hasn't served in the military, she has no fucking idea of how to be a good commander-in-chief, fucking shill.

I remember during one important battle in the Civil War, Caesar rallied his troops by rushing headlong into enemy ranks by himself and was nearly killed by arrows. Then again he probably only did it because if he had lost the battle he would have been dead either way.

If Hillary didn't serve in the military, how did she get her soldiers killed at Benghazi?

Checkmate Trumpets.

Kek

Caesar used to be a straight up soldier
He won lots of awards for his bravery including the oak wreath crown
He wasnt afraid to get in the thick of it, its why his solders were so fanatic in support of him

If he remained in the business world, of course.
Trump isn't dumb enough to not recognize running a corporation is rather different than being President. But he wants to be anyway, and has done an impressive job of getting there so far.

When did I mention Hillary, my little sperglord?
I have equal reason to hate her politically as I do Trump. In the grand scheme of things, I'll still take a witch who's spent close to over 40 years in Law and Congress over some douchebag corporate bully who peddles shitty products.

I was 12 once

Well it was either that or being called a cuck.

lmao the dude with a nazi helmet on your pic

Your logic is flawed if you prefer a literally insane treasonous war criminal to a mildly funny buffoon businessman

Don't be dumb

the whole election have been like a choice of AIDS or HIV for me, user. Real estate is the most cutthroat business there is, and there isn't a doubt in my mind Trump has skeletons in his closet that would rival the Parisian catacombs.

Meanwhile, at the legion of doom...

In East Asia its almost fucking required for Generals to fight alongside their men. Largely because in the Chinese and Japanese cases, their formation are fuck big, and generals have to be present among the men to give orders the force of high command.

Hence those Samurai heroes and Chinese folk stories of Generals stuck in the fighting are no joke.

Emperors though rarely fought in battles, with the exception of some Ming, T'ang, and Qing Emperors.

He's going to be remembered just like George wallace. He's a populist Douche who just seeks the thrill of the race and wants no actual responsibility at one point he might have had good intentions but that went out the window a long time ago

Segregation now Segregation tomorrow Segregation forever

It's fairly well documented that Alexander often personally led his cavalry, which was his job in Philip's forces. So, it would seem he just sort of kept doing what he knew. Several accounts touch on how he would sustain injuries from being involved in the fighting, though I'm not certain that he was known to fight with infantry often, if at all. However, I think it's worth noting that he was heavily ingrained in a culture in which martial prowess was held to mirror your capabilities as a leader of men. So whether he was actually unique in riding to battle with his cavalry is unlikely. What IS unlikely is just how successful his campaigns were, and how many battles he won while directly involved with his cavalry.

napoleon was part of many battles
during the siege of toulon he charged with his men while commanding the reserves (before being napoleon) and he was also injured in that battle (bayonet in the leg)
before that he was part of an artillery crew so he definitely killed men and at least in toulon with his sword and not just at long range with cannon balls.

he was also shot several times during his life and was even hit by a howitzer shell who didn't kill him because he was mounted but instantly killed his horse and let him injured.

all of that to end up being poisoned by the treacherous british... a tale very similar to what happened to george s. patton - who was injured many times during ww2 and survived hell and got killed during a car crash when he was driving home after being discharged when the was ended.

>anybody can point a gun at someone and pull the trigger

I dont think you've fired a gun before, friend, let alone ever been shot back at.

Hannibal allegedly took personal command of his center at Cannae. This was because the troops there were the least experienced, and most likely to break early. It was also so he could personally manage the organized withdrawal, ensuring that it was coordinated with the cavalry hitting the Roman rear and ensuring envelopment. Not sure if he stuck around for the hours of massacring panicked Romans

Then you would be wrong, and I'm not your friend

At the battle of the Sabis it is said Caesar jumped off of his horse to join the men on the right flank and ordered them to physically push the enemy away.