• WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    They used to. For millennia they were with thier army. Even Washington was in battles.

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Khrux@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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…

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      WWI was the last war that the elite fought in. At least in the US, and even then they sent their kids, not the old people that started it.

  • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ruplicant@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why don’t presidents fight the war?
    Why do they always send the poor?
    Why do they always send the poor?
    Why do they always send the poor?!

  • wrath_of_grunge@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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”

  • BOMBS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If the war is so important, then they will have no problem dying for it. If their country is so strong, then it’ll be fine without them.