Why Did Kings Stop Leading Troops into Battle? Documentary
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Rugfaxkni
Shoutout to Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt III, who died of a heart attack in Normandy in July 1944. Despite being the son of Teddy Roosevelt and a distant cousin of FDR, on top of having a bad leg and overall poor health, he refused to ride out the war in a staff position behind the lines. He basically harrangued his superiors into letting him go ashore in the first wave on D-Day. This ended up being very fortitous, as the first waves in his area, 'Omaha Beach, ' ended up a mile from where they should have been. As a general ashore and seeing the situation with his own two eyes, he ordered the next waves diverted to reinforce the landing at the wrong location, which ended up saving the entire operation in that stretch of beach.
reply
Shoutout to Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt III, who died of a heart attack in Normandy in July 1944. Despite being the son of Teddy Roosevelt and a distant cousin of FDR, on top of having a bad leg and overall poor health, he refused to ride out the war in a staff position behind the lines. He basically harrangued his superiors into letting him go ashore in the first wave on D-Day. This ended up being very fortitous, as the first waves in his area, 'Omaha Beach, ' ended up a mile from where they should have been. As a general ashore and seeing the situation with his own two eyes, he ordered the next waves diverted to reinforce the landing at the wrong location, which ended up saving the entire operation in that stretch of beach.
reply
AlexanderRM1000
0: 40 Brett Devereaux wrote a series on premodern generalship recently and one of his points was that general on a hill behind the battle only became a thing after the invention of the telescope, plus maybe some gunpowder related changes in how armies engaged. In ancient times you couldn't see anything from a hill behind the field and couldn't do much anyway, once the battle started many generals would choose where to send in reserves then run in with the last group of reserves themselves to a key spot for the morale/prestige boost. (Caesar and Alexander have quite different styles but both do this repeatedly)
reply
0: 40 Brett Devereaux wrote a series on premodern generalship recently and one of his points was that general on a hill behind the battle only became a thing after the invention of the telescope, plus maybe some gunpowder related changes in how armies engaged. In ancient times you couldn't see anything from a hill behind the field and couldn't do much anyway, once the battle started many generals would choose where to send in reserves then run in with the last group of reserves themselves to a key spot for the morale/prestige boost. (Caesar and Alexander have quite different styles but both do this repeatedly)
reply
Crown
1813 and 1814 saw two sovereigns commanding their armies. Napoleon for the French and Carl Johan, who was Regent, so it counts, for the 6th Coalition. Unlike the cheerleaders Alexander, Francis and FWIII, or even Murat who was subordinate, Napoleon and Carl Johan were the actual generals leading their armies and both created the campaign plan for their side. Carl Johan created the Trachenberg Plan. At Leipzig, Carl Johan was on the frontline and lost several aides. Though, it was perhaps too much bravado considering the Swedish history of losing monarchs in battle.
reply
1813 and 1814 saw two sovereigns commanding their armies. Napoleon for the French and Carl Johan, who was Regent, so it counts, for the 6th Coalition. Unlike the cheerleaders Alexander, Francis and FWIII, or even Murat who was subordinate, Napoleon and Carl Johan were the actual generals leading their armies and both created the campaign plan for their side. Carl Johan created the Trachenberg Plan. At Leipzig, Carl Johan was on the frontline and lost several aides. Though, it was perhaps too much bravado considering the Swedish history of losing monarchs in battle.
reply
mattwho81
Classical kings were expected to Be generals, judges, lawmakers, administrators, tax collectors and diplomats. Sometimes also religious figures. As nations grew in complexity and early democracys evolved (though their definition of democracy didnt include criminals, religious dissidents, the poor or women) these roles were stripped back. By the 1900s European kings existed mostly just to exist, all actual power was devolved several levels down. The people behind the throne didnt want the king to lead armies, it might give them ideas about how holds the power.
reply
Classical kings were expected to Be generals, judges, lawmakers, administrators, tax collectors and diplomats. Sometimes also religious figures. As nations grew in complexity and early democracys evolved (though their definition of democracy didnt include criminals, religious dissidents, the poor or women) these roles were stripped back. By the 1900s European kings existed mostly just to exist, all actual power was devolved several levels down. The people behind the throne didnt want the king to lead armies, it might give them ideas about how holds the power.
reply
Syd
Henry the fifth was the last English king to lead from the front lines. He was acknowledged as last monarch to lead from front. His last battle was an invasion of france. Fortunate to return home after that battle and hardship monarchs tended to stay safe away from battles. There been exceptions but those monarches never were on the front lines like Henry the fifth. One thing to be on field another to partake in battle on front lines. Huge difference.
reply
Henry the fifth was the last English king to lead from the front lines. He was acknowledged as last monarch to lead from front. His last battle was an invasion of france. Fortunate to return home after that battle and hardship monarchs tended to stay safe away from battles. There been exceptions but those monarches never were on the front lines like Henry the fifth. One thing to be on field another to partake in battle on front lines. Huge difference.
reply
Abisai
Altough Napoleon loved the battlefield and leading his armies, when he took power in 1799 France had already suffered through 5 different coup detat in barely 10 years, so by staying with the armies and away from a siegeable palace in Paris he ensured that his reign couldn't be toppled, somewhat similar to what Cesar, Aurelian and Vespasian did during the Roman Empire
reply
Altough Napoleon loved the battlefield and leading his armies, when he took power in 1799 France had already suffered through 5 different coup detat in barely 10 years, so by staying with the armies and away from a siegeable palace in Paris he ensured that his reign couldn't be toppled, somewhat similar to what Cesar, Aurelian and Vespasian did during the Roman Empire
reply
Ville
Actually Queen Elizabeth II did server in the Military during WWII. She was an ambulance driver and car mechanic, also (if I recall which one correctly) prince Harry fought in Afghan war, but was called back after it became publicly known. So monarchs have been in quite recent wars. Ruling monarchs haven't yes, but monarchs have
reply
Actually Queen Elizabeth II did server in the Military during WWII. She was an ambulance driver and car mechanic, also (if I recall which one correctly) prince Harry fought in Afghan war, but was called back after it became publicly known. So monarchs have been in quite recent wars. Ruling monarchs haven't yes, but monarchs have
reply
Andrew
Love your stuff. Just a note on your mentioning king Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia leading his troops in battle in the 1930's I'd like to mention another king/emperor leading his troops in battle in the same decade: Hailey Selassie of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) defending against The Italian army's mechanised invasion
reply
Love your stuff. Just a note on your mentioning king Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia leading his troops in battle in the 1930's I'd like to mention another king/emperor leading his troops in battle in the same decade: Hailey Selassie of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) defending against The Italian army's mechanised invasion
reply
Simon
Didnt Obama Barraka Charge towards Al bin Ladin stronghold together with the American Army?
I feel we need to put more American president in the front line. I mean they dont have, uch of a reputation right now, so earning some merit would be great for them.
(Cmon everyone encourge them)
reply
Didnt Obama Barraka Charge towards Al bin Ladin stronghold together with the American Army?
I feel we need to put more American president in the front line. I mean they dont have, uch of a reputation right now, so earning some merit would be great for them.
(Cmon everyone encourge them)
reply
lessago
Because past emperors and kings were not pussies, while for the last hundreds of years our leaders have been total pussies and cowards; and that is why nationalism is cancer. We fight so they can sit in their castles and win either way, betting on both sides.
reply
Because past emperors and kings were not pussies, while for the last hundreds of years our leaders have been total pussies and cowards; and that is why nationalism is cancer. We fight so they can sit in their castles and win either way, betting on both sides.
reply
history_matters
Props to Karl the 12th
Also knows as Charles the 12th/Carolus Rex ( he led his men at the fold while most His foes didnt, He pushed the kingdom of Sweden from being an average mid Eruopean kingdom into a feckin power house)
reply
Props to Karl the 12th
Also knows as Charles the 12th/Carolus Rex ( he led his men at the fold while most His foes didnt, He pushed the kingdom of Sweden from being an average mid Eruopean kingdom into a feckin power house)
reply
darrian
They still lead people into battle only difference is the king is now the government and are not present on the battle field. Now its just the people who march on to kill each other all for the interest of the king (government)
reply
They still lead people into battle only difference is the king is now the government and are not present on the battle field. Now its just the people who march on to kill each other all for the interest of the king (government)
reply
Reitairue
I think one of our biggest mistakes as a society was allowing leaders to be pencil pushers instead of making them be warriors. Look at all the corruption these days, and the bastards just sit on their asses and laugh.
reply
I think one of our biggest mistakes as a society was allowing leaders to be pencil pushers instead of making them be warriors. Look at all the corruption these days, and the bastards just sit on their asses and laugh.
reply
Jonathan
And now you have Zelenskyy, though I think hes mostly visiting the front rather than leading but also you had the king of Jordan personally piloting a plane while leading the bombing of IS targets a few years ago
reply
And now you have Zelenskyy, though I think hes mostly visiting the front rather than leading but also you had the king of Jordan personally piloting a plane while leading the bombing of IS targets a few years ago
reply
Rich
Leading means from the front not from the back like most did. King Richard 1st was last English king to lead his troops into battle. Did not work out well for him but he was the last English king to do this.
reply
Leading means from the front not from the back like most did. King Richard 1st was last English king to lead his troops into battle. Did not work out well for him but he was the last English king to do this.
reply
geodiet
Was this actually a real thing? I always thought this was more a movie-thing since it couldn't be that difficult in real life to focus all your attacks on the king if he goes into battle on the forefront
reply
Was this actually a real thing? I always thought this was more a movie-thing since it couldn't be that difficult in real life to focus all your attacks on the king if he goes into battle on the forefront
reply
Denny
Basically army need king or lord in the battlefield in feudal state which you cannot rule all forces but only of owned but after central bureaucracy becomes core system, kings need not to go out.
reply
Basically army need king or lord in the battlefield in feudal state which you cannot rule all forces but only of owned but after central bureaucracy becomes core system, kings need not to go out.
reply
Shuhrat
There's something about imagining Queen Elizabeth II rappelling off a helicopter firing an L85A2 at Argentinians in her royal outfit and war face paint that makes me exhaling excessively
reply
There's something about imagining Queen Elizabeth II rappelling off a helicopter firing an L85A2 at Argentinians in her royal outfit and war face paint that makes me exhaling excessively
reply
Danil
perhaps it's not necessary. but it is good for the popularity. like King Albert the first of Belgium stayed behind the frontlines during WW1. giving him the nickname Soldier king
reply
perhaps it's not necessary. but it is good for the popularity. like King Albert the first of Belgium stayed behind the frontlines during WW1. giving him the nickname Soldier king
reply
Emre
Ottoman's last warrior sultan was Mahmud II, in 1697, went to Hungary, recently lost provinces, wanted to take this back to Austria and Holy Coalition defeated him.
reply
Ottoman's last warrior sultan was Mahmud II, in 1697, went to Hungary, recently lost provinces, wanted to take this back to Austria and Holy Coalition defeated him.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
