I have been thinking about this for a long time and thought I would share it with everybody out there.
Basically I've been thinking that if I were a General in command of an Army I would personally prefer to be with my men. In today’s wars, unless you are a General in a guerrilla force, you tend to stay at a base, directing your troops by radio and only going to the front lines on morale boosting visits when there is no shooting. Some Generals aren't even in the same continent as the men they lead.
Now I'm not saying I would be leading from the front because in today’s wars where Generals are leading more than 100,000 men trying to direct everyone would be a nightmare. A General nowadays has to be somewhere behind the lines where he has access to a radio and can receive updates from runners etc.
But do they really have to be as far back as they are nowadays. Generals would always lead from the front (or relatively close) but with the advent of gunpowder and rifles being able to shoot longer distances generals have been pushed further back.
The longest confirmed sniper kill was around 2,400m so you would have to be back around three or four kilometres. But they don't have to be back so far that they don't experience the same conditions as their troops. I'm talking about Generals been so close that they are at considerable risk of dying from artillery or bombing, so close that when the army is starving, miserable and cold they are too, so close that any decision (surrender) that affects the Army affects them too.
Examples in modern history where Generals have been put in situations like this are;
General Anthony McAuliffe who was the acting division commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the Battle of the Bulge became surrounded with the division and had to suffer the same appalling conditions that his men did. When the Germans asked him to surrender he declined. If he had surrendered he would have gone into captivity along with his men.
Jonathan Wainwright was the temporary general who was captured by the Japanese after surrendering Corregidor. Douglas MacArthur wanted to stay in the Philippines and suffer the same fate as his men but was ORDERED to retreat to Australia by President Roosevelt.
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was famous for leading from the front (which apparently annoyed his staff). He conducted many night time raids during the war in North Africa riding in his own tank.
Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus was the highest ranked German to surrender during WW2 and the only German Field Marshal too surrender. He along with another 30 German Generals were surrounded during the Battle of Stalingrad and had to endure the same conditions as his men and eventually surrendered with them.
Some of these Generals and Field Marshals chose to be in these situations and/or stay in them and others were forced into them.
Is there any place in Modern Warfare, perhaps if there was to be WW3 but it was fought similar to WW2 (Forget Nuclear Weapons), for Generals to either be put in this situation or choose to fight alongside (or as close as they can get) to their men.
There is always the possibility that they are killed or captured which could lower morale but for a soldier who’s sheltering from an artillery bombardment and sees a four-star General also sheltering and getting pelted with shrapnel, it could be a strong morale booster.
Do you think Generals should be closer to the front lines or are they fine where they are?
And if you were a General today would you lead from the front?
Basically I've been thinking that if I were a General in command of an Army I would personally prefer to be with my men. In today’s wars, unless you are a General in a guerrilla force, you tend to stay at a base, directing your troops by radio and only going to the front lines on morale boosting visits when there is no shooting. Some Generals aren't even in the same continent as the men they lead.
Now I'm not saying I would be leading from the front because in today’s wars where Generals are leading more than 100,000 men trying to direct everyone would be a nightmare. A General nowadays has to be somewhere behind the lines where he has access to a radio and can receive updates from runners etc.
But do they really have to be as far back as they are nowadays. Generals would always lead from the front (or relatively close) but with the advent of gunpowder and rifles being able to shoot longer distances generals have been pushed further back.
The longest confirmed sniper kill was around 2,400m so you would have to be back around three or four kilometres. But they don't have to be back so far that they don't experience the same conditions as their troops. I'm talking about Generals been so close that they are at considerable risk of dying from artillery or bombing, so close that when the army is starving, miserable and cold they are too, so close that any decision (surrender) that affects the Army affects them too.
Examples in modern history where Generals have been put in situations like this are;
General Anthony McAuliffe who was the acting division commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the Battle of the Bulge became surrounded with the division and had to suffer the same appalling conditions that his men did. When the Germans asked him to surrender he declined. If he had surrendered he would have gone into captivity along with his men.
Jonathan Wainwright was the temporary general who was captured by the Japanese after surrendering Corregidor. Douglas MacArthur wanted to stay in the Philippines and suffer the same fate as his men but was ORDERED to retreat to Australia by President Roosevelt.
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was famous for leading from the front (which apparently annoyed his staff). He conducted many night time raids during the war in North Africa riding in his own tank.
Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus was the highest ranked German to surrender during WW2 and the only German Field Marshal too surrender. He along with another 30 German Generals were surrounded during the Battle of Stalingrad and had to endure the same conditions as his men and eventually surrendered with them.
Some of these Generals and Field Marshals chose to be in these situations and/or stay in them and others were forced into them.
Is there any place in Modern Warfare, perhaps if there was to be WW3 but it was fought similar to WW2 (Forget Nuclear Weapons), for Generals to either be put in this situation or choose to fight alongside (or as close as they can get) to their men.
There is always the possibility that they are killed or captured which could lower morale but for a soldier who’s sheltering from an artillery bombardment and sees a four-star General also sheltering and getting pelted with shrapnel, it could be a strong morale booster.
Do you think Generals should be closer to the front lines or are they fine where they are?
And if you were a General today would you lead from the front?