Did kings and commanders alike always fight on the very front?

[cenkiss]

We always see in movies and in many books how kings were with their men fighting on the front,choopping enemies,giving their soldiers morale.Even some history books write it that way.But was it always like this,were kings always that brave?

[conon394]

We always see in movies and in many books how kings were with their men fighting on the front,choopping enemies,giving their soldiers morale.Even some history books write it that way.But was it always like this,were kings always that brave?

Depends - Clearly Xerxes tended to watch his armies, but other Persian Kings/Pretenders were more involved Darius III, or Cyrus the younger come to mind. Certainly the Classical world tended to feel a commanders place was right up front (you can reel of a very long list indeed of Greek and Roman commanders who were were leading from the front and died there often enough in victory or defeat) - but in very large battles there would seem to be some room for some detachment so as to direct battle. In sieges one also seemed to have a bit more leeway to be a manager but not a leader in the breech necessarily, but buy the same token Phillip was close enough to the walls to loose an eye to and Athen's best general in the Lamian war also got killed while overseeing a siege operation (as did Lamachus at Syracuse) from right at the point of battle.

And if you think about Nelson was rather obviously leading his ships right into battle.

[Orko]

Sometimes. In the modern time, much less. It mostly happened in the middle ages, and throughout most human history the leaders of a nation were usually the supreme commanders on the field.

[Watchman]

Eh, I dunno. The Swedish for example seem to have had a bit of a thing for getting kings killed on the field (Gustav II Adolf at Lützen), narrowly escaping serious injury and/or death (Charles X Gustav in front of Warsaw), getting injured by stray bullets (Charles XII sometime before Poltava)...
Napoleon had a number of close calls too, I seem to recall.

Heck, even in WW2 a few commanders liked to reconnoiter in person to get a better idea of the battlefield, which obviously had its risks.

[CiviC]

Eh, I dunno. The Swedish for example seem to have had a bit of a thing for getting kings killed on the field (Gustav II Adolf at Lützen), narrowly escaping serious injury and/or death (Charles X Gustav in front of Warsaw), getting injured by stray bullets (Charles XII sometime before Poltava)...
Napoleon had a number of close calls too, I seem to recall.

Heck, even in WW2 a few commanders liked to reconnoiter in person to get a better idea of the battlefield, which obviously had its risks.

The Swedish example, although a heroic one is a bad one. By their unnecessary deaths, Gustav II Adolf and Charles XII deprived their nation of valuable leaders in the middle of important wars.

[Watchman]

The Swedish example, although a heroic one is a bad one. By their unnecessary deaths, Gustav II Adolf and Charles XII deprived their nation of valuable leaders in the middle of important wars.

Great job completely missing the point. Which was that if a monarch now wanted to command an army, he was pretty much bound to have to go near the frontline sooner or later (in no small part due to visibility issues; especially after the widespread adoption of firearms, "fog of war" was something very literal) and, thus, ran a greater or lesser degree of personal risk.

BTW the Swedes did just fine with GIIA dead, and when XII died in Norway (the debate over if he was shot by someone from his own side still goes on) the Swedish empire had already collapsed years ago in the aftermath of Poltava.

This was, AFAIK, by no means restricted to monarchs nevermind now Swedish ones. The means of communication available (ie. shouting loudly) quite simply meant that if a commander wanted to know what was actually going on around the battlefield, he had to check in person or at the very least send an aide to take a look; but obviously if he went himself, there would be much less delay in passing new orders should such be necessary. This goes double for parts of the army that per definition operated in a very fluid and fast-paced fashion and where split-second decisions were often necessary, such as the cavalry - one of the reason cavalry commanders tended to have a lot of leeway, and somewhat brash and impulsive types were actually preferred for the job.

[Da Skinna]

Churchill. Don't forget Churchill.

[Homeros]

We always see in movies and in many books how kings were with their men fighting on the front,choopping enemies,giving their soldiers morale.Even some history books write it that way.But was it always like this,were kings always that brave?

Kings are not braver than anyone else.

From a command perspective its unwise. When engaged in combat themselves, they would lose sight of the battlefield, thus unable to adjust tactics should the need arise. There is, however, something in between. Caesar, for example, lead his army during the battle of Alesia. He did not thrown himself into battle, but he did show himself at the front when things started to get critical. In doing so he boosted the morale of his men without losing sight of the big picture.

[bushbush]

Kings are not braver than anyone else.

From a command perspective its unwise. When engaged in combat themselves, they would lose sight of the battlefield, thus unable to adjust tactics should the need arise. There is, however, something in between. Caesar, for example, lead his army during the battle of Alesia. He did not thrown himself into battle, but he did show himself at the front when things started to get critical. In doing so he boosted the morale of his men without losing sight of the big picture.

i actually like that better; commander's role is not fighting as an individual, but to lead tens of thousands of individuals to victory with on-time effective tactical decisions. If he was the first one killed, wut's the use of him as a commander?

[cupoftea]

Yes, Albert the first of Belgium fought alongside his soldiers in WW1

[Mig el Pig]

Yes, Albert the first of Belgium fought alongside his soldiers in WW1

when there wasn't any fighting.

[Yuiis]

Brave but unwise (imo) kings did it. And often died in battle for it. Another example is Peter the Catholic of Aragon, who was killed by the french in the Battle of Muret.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret

[Mig el Pig]

Yes, Albert the first of Belgium fought alongside his soldiers in WW1

Not exactly, he visited from time to time though during lulls in the fighting ( + he was the nephew of the german emperor, don't know where I read it but sometimes arrangements were made with the germans for these visits. But I don't know if it's true)

[AqD]

i actually like that better; commander's role is not fighting as an individual, but to lead tens of thousands of individuals to victory with on-time effective tactical decisions. If he was the first one killed, wut's the use of him as a commander?

Nah. A commander leads the army. If he cannot lead by example he's not a worthy commander and soldiers would not follow him willingly.

If he's killed, there are other commanders anyway!

[Homeros]

Nah. A commander leads the army. If he cannot lead by example he's not a worthy commander and soldiers would not follow him willingly.

Soldiers follow orders willingly when knowing that the commander is capable and would lead them to victory.

If he's killed, there are other commanders anyway!

Huh? Why having a commander in the first place if it doesn't matter if he lives or dies?

[AqD]

Soldiers follow orders willingly when knowing that the commander is capable and would lead them to victory.

I'd not follow a coward Ask the celts and germans and they'd agree with that too!

Huh? Why having a commander in the first place if it doesn't matter if he lives or dies?

His position is important, his person is not. A good army shouldn't rely on any individuals!

[konny]

This depended very much on the army in question and the expected role of the leader. In many Ancient cultures and most of the European Middle Ages the king, commanders and other 'officers' would be expected and needed to fight in the front line because they were by far the best armed men in the army. The same would not apply, for example, for the CW periode where the soldiers had rifles and the commanders were armed with sabres, pistols and other side-arms only. The general, together with his officers, might have picked a rifle and lined himself up, but this wouldn't give the army any countable advantage over the enemy.

The need to fight in the front line for leaders would always result in a code of honor to do so, what again turns into a tradition of bravery. As traditions are rather long living even though the original meaning has long since disappeared, you still see high ranking officers getting themselves engaged in personal combat in the later periodes, even though it would have then been a rather bad behaviour. Nowadays a general who knows his job wouldn't even get close to the battlefield.

Another question is size of the army. In a clash of two warbands with some hundred men on each side there would be not much need for the commanders to stay behind the lines and 'supervise' the fighting. This would be different when hundreds of thousands men would be fighting over a large battlefield.

Then we have armies of different structurs: In a classical Roman army the noble cavalry would have only little meaning and the fight would be decided by the common foot soldiers. That way there would be no desperate need for the commander and his stuff to join the fight. In a knights' army the fighting would usually be decided by the charge of the noble horsemen, what would that way better be commanded by the general in person.

The same could be said of Alexander's army: Even though they were large and composed of many different types of units, the decission was made by the attack of the cavalry, commanded by the king in person. He could have afforded to stay with the assault wing and leave the rather static blocks of pikemen to themselves.


There had been a lot of writing in the history of military literature whether the leader should fight with the men to 'inspire' them or whether to stay behind the line to keep control of the battle. The effect of additional inspiration is rather limited because only very few men would actualy see their king or general in the first line, and most of them would be occupied protecting him. On the other hand the absence of the commander from the frontline when he is expected and needed on this position could have dramatic effects on the moral of the men there.

[frontier-auxilia]

It depends on who your talking about. Guys like Alexander, Caesar and Ran Min at times fought on the front as 1st they wanted to put on a good show, inspiring their man to greater deeds 2nd being dang good fighter themselves (for Caesar's case, it is debatable but he did held off those conspirators for a pretty damn long time given his age ) and 3rd doing so for strategic reasons or simply fictionally inspired in their cultural life. With generals being the heart and brain of an army however, most are adviced to stay away from the front line as advocated by a Byzantine military article.

Yes and it can be quite hazardous. Centurion being minicommander themselves fought on the front most of the time and in most cases ended up dead.

@Homeros: I always thought Caesar was in the thick of it :S. He's still exposing himself to danger.

[Dr. Croccer]

Depends. In ancient and Medieval times, many kings/commanders did fight alongside their forces, and many did die on the frontlines. In modern times you have commanders that visit the front lines, but very rarely stay there for long. Though that depends on what you mean by ''commander'', generals or field marshals or commanders of individual units? Seeing as the former and latter did indeed fight and die on many instance on the front lines, intentionally or not. IIRC there was a French general in Verdun in WWI that was killed in the first parts of the offensive as he refused (or was unable to) to retreat. There were various Soviet and German generals (and many more lower rank commanders)that died at the front lines in WWII.

[Watchman]

IIRC there was a French general in Verdun in WWI that was killed in the first parts of the offensive as he refused (or was unable to) to retreat. There were various Soviet and German generals (and many more lower rank commanders)that died at the front lines in WWII.

That would be the Colonel Émile Driant. But yeah, AFAIK it wasn't that unusual for the "frontline" level of senior officers - that is, the formation-level commanders - to sometimes even get involved in direct fighting themselves, particularly if things went really sour. Their HQs after all were more or less in the rather immediate vicinity of the actual combat zone.

Modern commanders are of course more "battle managers" than "heroic leaders", modern warfare being more about coordination and communications than charismatic, inspiring leadership from the front. But back when the limitsof communications were a man's voice, it was often necessary for the lea ders to at the very least be visible to their subordinates if not outright lead them by example - all the more so if, as in "feudal" arrangements, they were to a large degree made up of his personal followers and/or social peers who could not be expected to obey the orders of a man who wasn't ready to take the same risks himself.