Would a general really get involved in hand-to-hand combat during a battle? Seems kind of dangerous

Would a general really get involved in hand-to-hand combat during a battle? Seems kind of dangerous

Other urls found in this thread:

badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=300855119543
youtube.com/watch?v=5ds054OF7hY
youtu.be/tC7r8yBewTk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard
quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chance-of-conquering-Europe-in-the-13th-century-had-Ogedei-not-died-just-before-launching-his-invasion
thesecondachilles.com/2013/10/25/alexanders-injuries-part-1/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

How is he still standing with two arrows in his neck?

hand-to-hand, you mean like a bitchslap fight?

I don't think he was a general. Wasn't he a centurion, I remember one of Caesars centurions was pretty kick ass.

badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=300855119543

There is the link.

also
>flaming catapult rocks
nah.

>My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius

> based Marcus Aurelius

How could one man be so perfect Sup Forums?

Also, you got me.

Maybe he didn't usually fight on the front lines. All they were doing was facing some uppity Germans. He probably didn't feel threatened.

The better question is, how did he travel from France/ Germany all the way to Spain still bleeding from his wound?

youtube.com/watch?v=5ds054OF7hY

If the battle required it, sure.

Julius Caesar got involved in leading charges or figthing in the front lines in some tied battles to give example to his soldiers.

Alexandros the great was a commander more than a general, and usually fougth at the head of his best mounted troops.

now if you ask me, that battle vs the germans didnt seem like a pitched battle at all, but that the romans had all the advantages so i doubt a commander would have risked his live in such battle

Lindybeige is a god among men

Romans had a special type of distinction for generals who killed the enemy general, so it was kinda expected of them.

He led a cavalry charge and only ended up fighting the barbarians after he fell off his horse

>Julius Caesar got involved in leading charges or figthing in the front lines in some tied battles to give example to his soldiers.
no

>that video

That's the end scene when he's died and is walking through the afterlife

you'd have to get involved at some point, otherwise the soldiers start thinking you're a coward

Plus if you're well like and fabled you are a massive morale boost

>Julius Caesar got involved in leading charges or figthing in the front lines in some tied battles to give example to his soldiers.
As told in the book he wrote. Julius Caesar may be a fearsome warrior (he did BTFO pirates when he was young) but he's too smart to risk his life like that. The Roman Legion were too disciplined to require their general to fight by them for morale. He was probably overlooking the battlefield over a hill on horseback, like other successful conquerors (Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc).

Alexander the great was at the tip of his companion cavalry (who usually charged against the most protected enemy commanders) in basically every single battle he fought, was wounded multiple times

but he was kinda considered insane for doing that

Like Tywin Lannister, they fought from a hill, under a tented pavilion, with a goblet of wine at hand,

>The Roman Legion were too disciplined to require their general to fight by them for morale
Yes, but the soldiers expected the general to be physically and visibly there. And when things went spectacularly wrong, generals and kings died, on numerous occasions.

No, basically everything about that fight was wrong.

The Germans were barbaric!

Back then, leaders were far more likely to actually lead in battle, and the ones that did earned a LOT of loyalty from their troops.

When the most senior dude in the unit is willing to stand toe to toe with the enemy, then there is no excuse for any foot soldier to not be willing to do the same.

Alexander lead his cavalry from the front, and Julius Caesar was known to dismount from his horse, and fight on foot with his men, as a show of solidarity. Leaders that did this usually recruited a pretty good sized personal security detachment composed of some of the biggest and best fighters they could find to cover their asses when they did fight.

Generals stopped risking their asses with the advent of the machine gun and modern artillery in the early 1900's, which is why warfare has been conducted so inefficiently over the past 100 years or so. It's easy to order troops to do obviously stupid shit over and over when the leader is at no personal risk from his own incompetence.

>Julius Caesar was known to dismount from his horse, and fight on foot with his men

I thought they were required to do that?
Source: Fucking total war rome 2 son

>which is why warfare has been conducted so inefficiently over the past 100 years or so

Grade A shitposting

>Back then, leaders were far more likely to actually lead in battle, and the ones that did earned a LOT of loyalty from their troops.
The Mongols BTFO everyone they met because everyone fought like this. Instead of risking their lives Mongolian generals stayed back on his tent and lead with banners and drums while the opposing generals got riddled with arrows alongside his men like a moron.

The armies had several generals, one commanding the center, other the cavalry, other on the flanks etc; and one military tribune on top o that.

The generals could possibly engage in combat but sorrounded by a guard, but no the tribune (voluntarily)tribune on top o that.

The general could possibly engage in combat but sourrunded by a guard, but no the tribune (voluntarily)

Caesar? I have doubts. De bello gallico is 90% lies and propaganda

don't forget that they exploded when they hit their targets.

how the hell this shit show won so many oscars is beyond me.

derp

>90% lies
>not 90% corn

You didn't read it did you?

if their so great when are they now ?

They realized how trash the future was and bailed out. Wouldn't you?

The Mongols after Genghis Khan fell to complacency and infighting. They forgot what made them great (rapid, nomadic horse archers) and became sedentary Chinese/Arab/Turk people that they conquered.
No other Genghis Khan came, and the horse archer supremacy died with the advent of gunpowder (you outrange/outshoot the horse archers).

They succeeded in conquering the world but let the world conquer them.

>Asia

hahaha.
Would've been rekt by a proper European army. Not being racist though.

they didn't have to fight "proper" european armies head on because european armies were in still in the full retardation stone age mentality of resolving shit with 2 armies marching towards each other on a field

>The Mongols wrecked eastern Europe so bad with a scouting party the rest of Europe thought hell is coming.
> They only fell back because Genghis died.

Of all of Mongolia's enemies (China, Saracens, Japan and Europe) the European knights gave the least amount of resistance.

Actually, the Mongols beat multiple Russian and Polish armies, including famous Polish Hussars.

i'll rather fight hand to hand than be a conscripted soldier in the 18th century fighting for muh freedom and Independence.

youtu.be/tC7r8yBewTk

>Eastern Europe
>Russia, Poland

I specified "proper" for a reason.

WWI trench warfare
WWII German battle of Britain
WWII German eastern front campaign
WWII Japanese pacific theater campaign
Korean war / police action
French and American approach during the Vietnam war
Soviet and American approach to Afghanistan
American approach to Iraqi insurgent campaign

All straight up ass, incompetent, inefficient, and ineffective.

Had the senior leaders relying on such shitty approaches had to risk their asses the way they asked their troops to, then those approaches would have been dropped due to the number of dead "leaders" that tried to carry them out unsuccessfully.

there still was a lot of hand-to-hand in those days, mainly cavalry slashing niggas left and right, but the infantry would get physical often (that's why they had bayonets)

Tywin was a fucking beast back in the day, look up the war of Ninepenny Kings

he was not "known to dismount and fight on foot with his men" it was told that he ONCE charged into battle because if he had retreated then he would be a dead man anyway.

DELETE THIS

the polish were the greatest military force in europe at the time.

>General of the Felix Legions

What the fuck is he even saying? Each legion had it's own name.

they're in the wood post behind him

You see? In reality, Germans are a level-headed, efficient and civilized people.

Also, who was in charge for choosing the setting of that fight? Imagine how kick ass it would have been if they had them fighting on the frozen Danube.

Historic too!

Sorry for your euro-centric worldview but a rampaging horde of mongols would have cut through medieval Europe like a hot knife through butter. The most European army fielded in a typical battle was 20,000-30,000 at best. Only the Byzantines could field more. Ghenghis Khan was said to have over 100,000 troops. He would have a literal field day against any european army from that time.

It's happened before

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard
>The King, fighting with bandaged hands to cover his terrible wounds and sores, was in the thick of the fighting

quora.com/Did-the-Mongols-have-a-reasonable-chance-of-conquering-Europe-in-the-13th-century-had-Ogedei-not-died-just-before-launching-his-invasion

why was there a modern service road in roman heaven?

Roman angels were advanced as shit.

You clearly have no understanding of the intricacies of war.

he's a big guy

Do they have air support?

how much prep time does the stick have?

Meditations is really brilliant. One of the best books ever.

No warthogs bro

Years, I'm thinking, and no Sup Forums for distraction

>Years

pfff, not even an argument then

Fair points but this is kind of moving the goal post isn't it? Mongols being unable to sustain a western European campaign =/= getting wrecked by a European army.

A hypothetical where all of Christendom unites in a crusade against the mongols is one thing, but a typical European army's only chance of winning against them were to outlast them in a siege, not fight them in battle.

Aurelius, Seneca, gotta start with the greeks. Even the latin ones.

>Germans during WWII.

A lot of their mistakes were due to Hitler's poor strategic decisions and overconfidence. Don't think those examples fit your claim about front-line troops fighting better alongside generals. The Germans were doomed regardless of that.

>People forgetting that in the early Middle Ages Europe was the current day Africa of the world while the Mongols utterly crushed the two superpowers of their time (China and Arabia) one after the other.

Europe only became relevant once they learned how to put a shitload of cannons on their ships.

>muh smelly guys on horseback wrecked everyone

they basically killed a bunch of underarmoured pleb armies, if they came up against a properly organised force with longbows they would have been decimated

>comparing single pitch battles to complex strategic wars

top kek, also the japanese naval leadership actually did take personal command of their battleships/carriers, and a lot went down with their ships

no, Europeans were always martially superior to Easterners

the Romans vanquished the Huns, the Magyars and the Avars were also defeated, the Mongol invasion of Hungary was sent back with their tails tucked between their legs

Maybe there were Legion Felix I and Legion Felix II fucking up german barbarians together so he commanded both Felix Legions

stop being so fucking autistic, there are a lot of shit to be autistic about in this movie, and this isnt one of them

Khalid Ibn Al-Walid.

Steppe hordes have gotten wrecked in Europe tons of times though when the European commanders aren't retarded enough to engage them with heavy infantry in the open field, and warfare is about a lot more than one army against another

Hell, Euros used to build small little castles (like 1,000 men) ahead of the main castles, they had castles everywhere. The attacker when coming across one would either have to waste precious time, resources, and manpower to attack or besiege it. If they ignored it, the guys inside would ride out and raid their baggage train or attack vulnerable rear troops

And like the guy says, old europe is not like modern europe. Dense marshlands and huge sprawling thick forests covered much of the terrain, it's part of the reason Arminius and his boys where able to slaughter Varus.

the mongols unlike the other steppe people before them did not seek to stay or occupy territories(initially). They would install a loyal governor to oversee cities they conquered and pay them tribute. Usually the brutality of their initial conquest, combined with the gentleness of their ruling policy(for instance they were allowed to continue all their same religious practices) was enough to keep cities in line.

The real reason the mongols would have never conquered europe is because it was a worthless target. Poor financially, intellectually, and in unfavorable terrain, it had nothing to offer to the mongols who had already conquered the greatest powers at the time. Europe should thank the mongols for disrupting the entire asian continent enough to allow them to surpass it.

hey John Green, how is the wifi in the cuckshed?

Caesar had many kickass centurions, seeing as how he never lost a major battle.

What are the conditions does the stick just have to survive and isbit enchanhted in any way

Commentaries disagrees with your clearly uninformed opinion. Caesar went to the front and fought there numerous times, corroborated even by Sallust's accounts.

Alexander the Great was known to lead his own veteran heavy cavalry unit on charges.

>to allow them to surpass it.
I love the "China was once the best, will be best again" meme

Europe was superior to anything the East had to offer under Rome, it had a period of decline due to the collapse of the Western Empire, then it resumed its superiority after the Renaissance

>Europe should thank the mongols for raping their women, ruining one of the best civilizations on earth at the time, and setting back humanity as a whole a few hundred years

Yeah no, Hitler was right about Mongols being sub-human

I know the Roman Emperor Julian took a spear to the side when he was rallying his troops against the Persians. When he died a few days later his army was in an utterly fucked position.

It may seem illogical but this type of fighting is not terribly dangerous as long as your unit didn't route. That's the reason soldiers served 20 year terms, they couldn't do that if they were hacking each other to pieces like in the movies. If you were a soldier that died during that time it was most likely from disease or getting ran down by enemy cavalry while running away.

>will be
remind me which country has the largest radio telescope again

The Mongols had nothing to do with Europe's rise to power. Europe superiority came from it's intellectual tradition stemming from the Greeks. It faded, but was readopted in the renaissance. Steel was also a huge component for Western conquest. Had the Mongols been more than reckless savages, they would've continued to pursue westward conquest and harnessed steel making techniques.

They recently finished it and for many years it was in Puerto Rico.

Completely safe!

>the Mongol invasion of Hungary was sent back with their tails tucked between their legs

Bragging about beating some islamo turk rape baby wannabe khan

When Hungry had to face the real thing; 1/4 of the population died, royalty exiled, and 3/4 of the army killed.

that's awesome

thesecondachilles.com/2013/10/25/alexanders-injuries-part-1/

Even kings did it from time to time
it didn't end well

Europe confirmed superior than mongoloid subhumans.

...

Casars fought himself against the Gauls many times

>Six good emperors in a row because they were all smart enough to name a qualified subordinate as their successor
>Names his unstable and idiotic son to be the next emperor, ruining the streak of good emperors

Why did Aurelius fuck up so bad?

>Augustus - Nero
Heirs entirely within their extended family.
>Vespasian
Named his son Titus as heir, younger brother succeeds when he dies.
>Nerva
No children, adopted Trajan as his heir.
>Trajan
No children, adopted Hadrian as his heir.
>Hadrian
No children, adopted Antoninus Pius as his heir.
>Antoninus Pius
No children, adopted Aurelius/Verus as his heirs.
>Aurelius
Has a son, names him as his heir.

There was no policy of adopting your heirs during the Five Good Emperors' reign, they all just happened to have no surviving sons to succeed them. Vespasian was the last one who did and named his son as his heir and the next one in that situation - Aurelius - did the same.

it would first and foremost depend on the general/commanding officer himself.

Since Maximus is depicted as someone from the plebs who probably worked his way up the ranks to Military Tribune (since his soldiers call him Tribune, I assume thats his proper rank), which is the rank above Centurion, and is well-liked among his legionaries, it fits his character that he'd get into the fighting himself.

>It's the frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick.

A general must join the battle to improve the morale of his soldiers and encourge them to fight better and that has been applied in many games like Tottal war of rome and Battle of the middle earth 2 if the general dies the army loses

>Battle of the middle earth 2 if the general dies the army loses
if a hero dies you resurrect him for less resources from the citadel what the hell are you talking about
some heroes have a leadership buff which increases damage and armor for nearby troops, that's about it

Worth mentioning that both Marcus Aurelius and Seneca were "Spaniards" from Córdoba, modern day southern Spain (Hispania). "Spaniards" were also the best other Roman emperors of all time, Trajan and Hadrian. Out of the Five Good Emprerors three of them were from Spain with mixed origins (meaning they weren't "pure roman settlers" but descendants of Iberians/Tartessians/Celtiberians). I say this because if I remember well Maximus in the movie Gladitator is called "hispanian", and Marcus Aurelius was also "hispanian/spaniard", so it's kinda interesting.

Yes he did you stupid rube, when shit gets tough good officers lead from the front