I have been thinking about the positions of Generals during battles in modern day wars. Typically from Ancient Egypt through to Medieval times Generals or Kings would go into battle with their armies, not at the front cause that would just be stupid, but they were always close enough that they could act as a moral booster.
However since the invention of gun powder Generals have been pushed back even further to a point that sometimes they aren't even on the same continent as the men they are commanding, due to the fact that it would be easier for a lone sniper to pick of a General during a battle.
I think it would be better if Generals were close enough to the front lines that they were in considerable peril too. I'm sure soldiers would be more willing to follow an order if they knew the person giving it was in danger too if it went wrong. I also can't help but think that if you were sheltering during a mortar barrage and saw a four star General getting showered with dirt and rocks it would make the average soldier fee; better.
Of course the General is probably commanding close to a million men so he does need to be far enough back that he can give orders easily and can get radio messages to units he's commanding without being hampered by enemy units almost over-running him.
There have been several instances of Military Leaders either leading from the front or being caught up in a serious battle in the past 100 years. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel used to lead from the front in his own tank and would even lead behind enemy lines missions to destroy allied fuel dumps. Because of this he was respected by his men and the enemy. Even General Patton respected him as a soldier. During the Battle of the Bulge and the Seige of Bastogne General Anthony McAuliffe was trapped along with the 101st Airborne. If he had surrendered to the Germans he would have gone into captivity with the ordinary soldiers also trapped their.
I just think that Generals would be able to issue better commands if they had a feel for how the battle was going.
However since the invention of gun powder Generals have been pushed back even further to a point that sometimes they aren't even on the same continent as the men they are commanding, due to the fact that it would be easier for a lone sniper to pick of a General during a battle.
I think it would be better if Generals were close enough to the front lines that they were in considerable peril too. I'm sure soldiers would be more willing to follow an order if they knew the person giving it was in danger too if it went wrong. I also can't help but think that if you were sheltering during a mortar barrage and saw a four star General getting showered with dirt and rocks it would make the average soldier fee; better.
Of course the General is probably commanding close to a million men so he does need to be far enough back that he can give orders easily and can get radio messages to units he's commanding without being hampered by enemy units almost over-running him.
There have been several instances of Military Leaders either leading from the front or being caught up in a serious battle in the past 100 years. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel used to lead from the front in his own tank and would even lead behind enemy lines missions to destroy allied fuel dumps. Because of this he was respected by his men and the enemy. Even General Patton respected him as a soldier. During the Battle of the Bulge and the Seige of Bastogne General Anthony McAuliffe was trapped along with the 101st Airborne. If he had surrendered to the Germans he would have gone into captivity with the ordinary soldiers also trapped their.
I just think that Generals would be able to issue better commands if they had a feel for how the battle was going.