When did leaders/rulers stop personally leading their armies into battle or directly being involved in war stuff?
I was thinking about the most recent leader I can think of that personally led their armies into battle, and the most recent I could think of was Napoleon.
How come this isn't a thing anymore? It seems like for thousands of years the militaristic ability of a leader was the primary thing they were measured by, but at some point it seems like it stopped being a thing.
World War I
Because war became more advanced than
>have more than enemy
>charge
Napoleons 'amazing tactics' were 'tell men to talk fast and miss breakfast' and 'put more guys on one line so that line breaks first' truly amazing
When communications became efficient enough to lead from the rear.
It is strategically and tactically a bad idea.
Wow and he did it successfully without any skill at all.
Napoleon was truly the luckiest guy in history
Iranians still do this
When the army became a professional organization run by the state, and the ruler was now expected to be part of an administrative machine, there was no point in leading from the front. Originally the ruler was there because his army was his personal guard and the guards of his closest friends and allies, so without him you might not have an army to begin with. As diplomacy and political organization improved, an army could muster itself at will under unified leadership for the good of the state without the direct hand of the ruler to guide that process. Thus there was no need to risk the ruler on the front any longer if he had other important duties to attend.
>Napoleons 'amazing tactics' were 'tell men to talk fast and miss breakfast' and 'put more guys on one line so that line breaks first' truly amazing
Everyone else must have been absolutely retarded to get their asses kicked by him then.
Qin dynasty, 300 BCE
Was it him or Hitler that decided that it was a good idea to invade Russia in the winter?
Both. Hitler should have learned from Napoleon, while I don't think Napoleon had anyone to learn from
If I remember correctly Hitler wanted to attack during summer, but had to help the italian army out because they fucked up an invasion.
I could be wrong though. Will try to get some source, once I'm at home
Hitler fucking started the attack in Midsummer, he'd have started it in May without Italians being such losers.
seriously how come the Italians were so goddamn pathetic in WWII?
You can't really attack russia in the spring or you get stuck in mud.
whats the best way to invade Russia? jw
Improved communications mostly. Napoleon led his troops into battle because if he didn't then he wasn't commanding them. Now a general can have a good idea of what's happening on the battlefield without going there. Also war happens on a larger scale, so being at a battle in person would hinder a generals ability to direct other battles. The general is the most important person in your army so why put him in harm's way for no reason?
They weren't ready for WW2 and their industry was the worst
From China
Because conventional warfare isn't a thing anymore. Ground troops aren't used as extensively due to their waning importance, and more significance is attached to naval, air, and cybernetic, power, as well as communication and supply lines.
Kind of hard to "lead" submarines and a fleet, especially since it requires very specialized experience to do so.
Anyways, this thread and the question are dumb, since the answer should be obvious to anyone who isn't some wistful reactionary.
even though you're right, that furfag pic entirely discredits you
Mussolini wanted to sit at the table of winners, also not to be roflstomped by germany.
Combine this with the terrible opinion that the international community had of the whole affair of the african campaign in Libia, and really Hitler was the only one smiling at Italy. When everything went to shit quickly it was too late to pull out and Italy went with it sucking all over the place.
2007 was 10 years ago, and the 'furfag' thing is as dead as trollface: deal with it.
...
As much as you continue trying to force that meme, it doesn't change the fact that people will disregard you for shitting out an irrelevant anthro picture when you're trying to make a real point.
Maybe with the advent of radio and better means of communication, there's no need to risk high ranking generals if they can give orders from the back. Just speculation though.
Napoleon did not invade in the winter, he invaded in summer. He didn't expect the conflict to last. Everyone conveniently forgets the Russians were a bunch of pussys who ran and burned their own capital to the ground.
Napoleon did lose some of his edge with age, but ultimately he "lost" because he never really got to fight in the first place.
To expand on this, Empire of Qin and the following successive states relied on multiple different levels of authority for military. On smaller scales you still have the captains going directly into battle, however on the top of the leadership chain, you have city officials who plan military strategy and tactics with their strategist. They don't become involved with the war itself physically unless it was absolutely required. While there were military/war generals who really liked battles and went to frontlines directly many simply chose to plan things ahead from the top and let their subordinates follow their instruction to the letter.
The key importance of military drill was introduced to ancient china to reinforce change in commands from the top. To follow orders according to the sound of battle, flag changes, etc. Large portion of the 2 year conscription training was devoted to following chain of commands, orders and formation training.
I can't see how this wasn't a thing all across the world. When I hear people say "only since Napolean" or "only since modern times" I kinda balk at the idea. Why wasn't this form of leadership more common in the west?
>t,triggered
I think you belong on Tumblr, in all seriousness. They'll be more accommodating to your cries for a "safe space" than here.
>I give up any pretense of being taken seriously, u mad?
>Why wasn't this form of leadership more common in the west?
It was, but then the Roman Empire collapse and a bunch of smelly barbarians took over and it all had to be relearned.
...
No they were just used to chivalry, which they expected a simple artillery officer to follow
>American education
Maybe he should have looked at a history book on Russia
Forcing everyone to see your weird shit for 10 years doesn't make them hate it less. It's a history thread there's no reason to post that trash. There's furfag threads by the hour on
Italy got rekt by Greece in WW2 which forced Hitler to delay operation Barbarossa so he would help his ally
>most recent leader I can think of
Yugoslav Tito in WWII was closely involved in the fighting, probably the only WWII leader to do so.
>Anonymous 04/23/17(Sun)14:20:08 No.2705369▶
>
>They weren't ready for WW2 and their industry was the worst
>>>
> Anonymous 04/23/17(Sun)14:24:35 No.2705380▶
>
>From China
>>>
Send them enough Afghan heroin and you won't have to.
Prince harry fought in Afghanistan. At first there was a debate on whether he should be allowed to fight on the front line in Iraq. He was granted permission only for his deployment to be cancelled amid threats that would make him a special target and put his squadron at risk. He was later secretly deployed in Afghanistan only to have it revealed by some German and Australian magazine. He later went on to fight in the RAF as well.
>"The army put you through a day, two-day course on the way back through Cyprus, which is crucial to everybody," he explained. "There are images I've been lucky enough not to see, but there have been images that I've been unfortunate to see, nothing like some of these guys, but, yes, there is a percentage of me being able to relate to exactly what they go through."
I remember reading somewhere else that either William or Harry felt that the military was a break from responsibilities of royalty. A chance to be normal, and that when they were ordered to return it was sad for them to leave their fellow soldiers, because it was not only a reminder of who they are but also the guilt that the others were to continue fighting without them.
>"You know, I described it to someone ages ago as one of those slide shows that go through your mind," he told the outlet. "If you've got a good imagination as well, everything that you see, especially if it's something that is quite powerful, then that slide is in there. It's always in there and if you have dark moments in your life, those slides will pop up."
Quite high level commanders still tend to be present in naval battles. Does that count?
is it k if I invade Afghanistan too?
Why not? I mean, everyone else is doing it.