It seems to me that the traditional way of having leaders going to war directly has slowly diminished and vanished from being how the way of things are supposed to be.
(My speculation)
And I speculate that one of the contributing factors which helped in changing people’s mindset and perspective, in normalizing with the cultural and traditions changes, is the fact that people of old time (whom long lived in these similar environment) [Edit: were able to get] used to accepting the benefits and the joys of having appointed such leaders, regardless of the drawbacks that comes with it - and the fact that they are corrupt.
It is a really interesting point to raise up, especially in today’s age.
And maybe, then, the more important question becomes: “How/ why did people normalize their perceptions and mindsets towards such leaders, despite their anticipated character changes became worse than their precedents”.
(Some justification)
It is really interesting, because historically, we have stories of figures (Such as Al-Shimr, the murderer of Imam Hussain) whom were known to have been cowardly, but were presenting themselves nonetheless, due to the fact that people sought the opposing leader was one with more qualities than theirs; and as such, if one leader becomes of the type that is confrontational and upfront in battles; the opposing leader, due to the pressures of his own people, perceptions, and environment, deems it necessary and more appropriate to come forth to present himself as one with better and more fitting qualities that makes him more qualified to be a leader than the enemy.
(It is certainly an interesting topic to discuss, research, and think about. And one might even write a respectable book about it, were there to be someone who writes a book about it.)
*Edit2:
How did the changes in perception happen ?
(How was it that people’s perceptions towards the current leader were inherited from people that appointed them long before their ages; i.e their ancestors that sought such leaders with presented qualities are more qualifying than others, whom, at some point, when they casted away the ones of their own that had stepped down into the battlefields with such better leadership qualities presented ?)
When did it happen (at what point exactly in history did it specifically happen, that their perceptions changed so much that they normalized with cowardly leaders) ?
I just realized that it interprets ’ — ’ in the text format as headers. I thought that was funny. (I was using them to make the split between lines from other paragraphs more apparent, and therefore more readable).
Yeah-yeah, some folks inherit star-spangled eyes
Hoo, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
Hoo, they only answer, "More, more, more, more"
I mean, having them out in platoons is too much. You would basically be punishing the real soldiers by burdening them with some mook. However, forcing them to live in forward operating bases, with no special considerations for safety, or comfort, would be nice.
Washington stayed with his troops but kept behind the lines. Western Leaders mostly stopped leading from the front after Gustavas Adolphus got killed doing so.
Also, Washington had military training and was elected because of his military victories. He didn’t fight as president, he had already resigned his commission by the time he was elected.
I’m British and not that well read on the American Revolution but I was under the impression that he was knows for riding out ahead of his troops? The general tactical decision other US generals kept making was stay in the safety of their forts, but that’s ineffective against the British who have the resources to win every war of attrition, and one of the things Washington was known for was basically pushing his troops out of forts by riding out himself?
I’m not super well read on it but that’s my understanding, although the flip side, George III and basically every other world leader wouldn’t have done the same, that was just one of those unique things Washington did.
Wallenstein still ran like a baby from that battle and was assassinated by his own side over it (allegedly). To think Adolphus would likely have secured Swedish land in mainland Europe…
Add comment