World Leaders and Ancient Kings

[Fire11]

Ancient Kings would fight in battles/wars. Kings would lead their armies in battlefields/battlegrounds. Kings were strong and brave men. There was 100% possibility that kings get killed in battles.

But today world leaders give orders/direct their armies from thousands of miles away. World leaders stay in highly sophisticated, highly protected, and luxury buildings while Armies/military fight in unknown battlefields.

Maybe that is the reason War continues for 10 years and more...........

When world leaders stay thousands of miles away from battlefield, they do not know the true situation on the battlefield. There is good possibility wrong information is provided to the world leaders by army from battlefields.

Ancient kings used to be on battlefields all through out the war so kings knew the true war situation and kings would make immediate decisions on battlefields.

Also when todays world leaders go and fight in war zone/battlefields and they come under heavy firing from enemy or bombshell explodes 20 meters away from them, world leaders will stop the war immediately.

[Icymudpuppy]

I've often thought this.

Suggest Constitution amendment stating that the "Commander in Chief" must actually command from the front lines.

[Fire11]

I've often thought this.Suggest Constitution amendment stating that the "Commander in Chief" must actually command from the front lines.
If you command warriors/soldiers you have to be brave and strong and lead from the front. Do not hide thousands of miles away.

[mczerone]

It's been repeated on RPFs that Saddam actually challenged Bush to a duel to settle the leadership of Iraq. Bush, the consummate coward, did not respond except by ordering other people to risk their lives for his goals.

Having to personally execute the imposition of force onto others would also go a long way to curbing police abuses. Instead of paying some guy in a blue costume to throw kids in cages, let the drug-warrior politicians and evangelicals get out on the street and start putting people in chains. They'd soon see that these are mostly harmless kids trying to get high or make a buck, and any armaments they're using are only meant to be defensive. They might feel regret.

But no, we live in this institution where the inmates get to crow on about how the world should be, and let the apparatchik figure out how to get it done, in a cold detached manner.

[nate895]

I do kind of like the old champion system. Don't like each other? Choose to strong men to duel to the death. Now we can avoid the whole nuclear bombs destroying whole cities thing.

[TNforPaul45]

+rep

Because this makes sense. When you are commanding troops on paper and on screens, it's more like a game to the leaders, instead of real-life dangerous struggle for victory. When the commander is on the battlefield leading the troops, they will not put them on the field unless they are sure that they can win, because they do not want to be slaughtered themselves due to a misguided war strategy or even misguided reasons for war.

[Vessol]

War ever has been simply a tool of the State to not only impoverish its own people but also to loot and pillage that of other States.

It doesn't matter if the Chief Pillagers lead the army or point to it on a map.

"Warrior-Kings" are a nice pretty poetic myth that people just can't seem to get enough of. Hell, that's the first piece of fiction that humans ever wrote. Gilgamesh was a Warrior-King. Why did some leaders choose to lead their forces personally? Because they didn't live in an age where you can call up and chat live with a man in Singapore from Kansas. Communication was poor. Either you delegated powers to someone else, or you did it yourself.

Your whole post is..juvenile in its understanding of history. The vast majority of leaders live opulent and luxurious lives on the beneifit of the producers, they are the king parasites. And below them are their subordinate parasites; generals, priests, soldiers, bureaucrats; whom they get to support them by bribing them with the production he has taken from the peons by force.

Wars in the past continued on far longer. Hell, the Peloponnesian War lasted 27 years. Wars were an almost constant thing. They were the health of the ancient State as much as they are to the modern state.


I do kind of like the old champion system. Don't like each other? Choose to strong men to duel to the death. Now we can avoid the whole nuclear bombs destroying whole cities thing.

Besides in thrilling Hollywood classics like Brad Pitt's Troy, I've yet to see any historical evidence of the "old champion system." As in actual historical documentation of this happening.


+rep

Because this makes sense. When you are commanding troops on paper and on screens, it's more like a game to the leaders, instead of real-life dangerous struggle for victory. When the commander is on the battlefield leading the troops, they will not put them on the field unless they are sure that they can win, because they do not want to be slaughtered themselves due to a misguided war strategy or even misguided reasons for war.

Yeah, because each and every war before the modern era was fought by rational and sane men. There were no grand mistakes or stupid decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharnaces_II_of_Pontus

[outspoken]

The use of violence is not noble and we should demand more of our leaders. I cannot believe that on a forum like this advocating liberty we have people talking about how noble and conscious it is to be an leader who fights with his men. It is one of the more moronic debates I have seen. War is hell and should always be treated as such.

[ChaosControl]

If the leader of a nation is not willing to personally fight in a war, then that is either a war or a leader not worth having.

[Vessol]

If the leader of a nation is not willing to personally fight in a war, then that is either a war or a leader not worth having.

And if he is willing to personally fight?

Chinggis Khan was a great guy.

[Jack Bauer]

And if he is willing to personally fight?

Chinggis Khan was a great guy.

Then he is a leader worth having.

However, the wars are not worth having.

PS: Genghis Khan was a great guy. He saved the earth from environmental disaster. :p

[ChaosControl]

And if he is willing to personally fight?

Chinggis Khan was a great guy.

Well the inverse to what I said isn't true. Just because they are willing to fight doesn't make the leader or the war just, it is just that if they are not willing to fight then it does mean that either the leader, the war, or both are not worth having.

[Vessol]

If we suddenly lost all our tools of communication at long distances and went back to a boy on a horse, I'm sure that you'd have modern leaders leading "in person."

By "in person", I mean standing back and organizing things. There are few record instances I've seen of any true Warrior-Kings who fought in the thick of battle. That'd be a pretty fucking retarded thing to do, why else do you have soldiers? They are simple pawns to be killed so you aren't killed. Unless you're trying to create propaganda that makes it look like you understand the common soldiers plight that you yourself created.

[nate895]

Besides in thrilling Hollywood classics like Brad Pitt's Troy, I've yet to see any historical evidence of the "old champion system." As in actual historical documentation of this happening.

I don't know, ever heard of David vs. Goliath? Oh, yeah, I forgot, because it's in the Jewish historical record, it must be wrong because it mentions God, and, well, we can't have that, now can we? It's not like any other historical records mention the gods or anything, and we rely on them. Oh, no, it's just the Bible that includes that.

Not to mention, are you a historian? I have yet to hear a historian dispute that there was, in some ancient battles, a champion selected for each side and they dueled it out. I'll admit to not being familiar with any primary source texts associated with it, but then again, I'm not familiar with many primary source texts from the ancient world.

Furthermore, just because it never happened historically does not make it necessarily a bad idea. I mean, if two parties could agree to settle a dispute via a duel between champions, why not do that instead of having thousands of people slaughtered?

[Vessol]

I don't know, ever heard of David vs. Goliath? Oh, yeah, I forgot, because it's in the Jewish historical record, it must be wrong because it mentions God, and, well, we can't have that, now can we? It's not like any other historical records mention the gods or anything, and we rely on them. Oh, no, it's just the Bible that includes that.

Not to mention, are you a historian? I have yet to hear a historian dispute that there was, in some ancient battles, a champion selected for each side and they dueled it out. I'll admit to not being familiar with any primary source texts associated with it, but then again, I'm not familiar with many primary source texts from the ancient world.

Furthermore, just because it never happened historically does not make it necessarily a bad idea. I mean, if two parties could agree to settle a dispute via a duel between champions, why not do that instead of having thousands of people slaughtered?

I love it, a concealed attack in a rebuttal. I must be a godless atheist because I doubt the literal word of the Bible!

Parts of the Judaic record certainly are historical, but as with almost all history when you go far enough in the past, it's hard to separate myth from fact and often things become very fantastical. I'd argue that myth and fact could not be discernibly separated until around the 16th century or so due to the rise of the number of recorders of history, be they professional or not.

A lot of books say a lot of things, and the more further back you go the more fantastic they become.

Take one of my favorite historical figures, Mithridates VI of Pontus. He could speak at least two dozen languages, he treated himself with dozens of poisons in order to build an immunity to them, he was seven feet tall. He was guarded in his sleep by a horse, a bull and a stag who would all cry in unison when someone approached his royal bed.
You have to take everything from history with a grain of salt, especially the more fantastical it seems.

I'm studying in the field of history, one of my favorite ways to waste time(aka a hobby) is to randomly look up various primary sources and other secondary sources and read and read and read. I hate to put the burden of proof on you, but I've never heard of a champion system beyond the romanticization of the ancient era of honor and wisdom. Maybe in the past leaders got in dresses and rode unicorns into battle, I have no proof, but that doesn't mean they never do it.

A dueling system would be impractical due to the very nature of war. War is not primarily waged over petty disputes and issues. Those are only excuses for a State to pillage and loot the tax cattle of another State. That always has been and always will be the primary motivator for war.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ancient Kings would fight in battles/wars. Kings would lead their armies in battlefields/battlegrounds. Kings were strong and brave men. There was 100% possibility that kings get killed in battles.

But today world leaders give orders/direct their armies from thousands of miles away. World leaders stay in highly sophisticated, highly protected, and luxury buildings while Armies/military fight in unknown battlefields.

Maybe that is the reason War continues for 10 years and more...........

When world leaders stay thousands of miles away from battlefield, they do not know the true situation on the battlefield. There is good possibility wrong information is provided to the world leaders by army from battlefields.

Ancient kings used to be on battlefields all through out the war so kings knew the true war situation and kings would make immediate decisions on battlefields.

Also when todays world leaders go and fight in war zone/battlefields and they come under heavy firing from enemy or bombshell explodes 20 meters away from them, world leaders will stop the war immediately.

Excellent point. One of the great failings of modern democracy/republicanism is that the leadership class has no stake in what happens to the rest of the population, and thus has no incentive to do what they are morally and legally obliged to do.

[pcosmar]

FAIL, at the concept of leaders.
We are supposed to elect Representatives, not leaders.
They are supposed to follow OUR lead.

Somehow that has gotten reversed.

[Fire11]

Because this makes sense. When you are commanding troops on paper and on screens, it's more like a game to the leaders, instead of real-life dangerous struggle for victory. When the commander is on the battlefield leading the troops, they will not put them on the field unless they are sure that they can win, because they do not want to be slaughtered themselves due to a misguided war strategy or even misguided reasons for war.
Excellent post.

[Soggy Cereal]

Yeah, talk about unintended consequences.

America would never have been able to go to war in World War II as FDR was stricken with polio. Expect FDR on the front lines? I think not.. Thank you for handing the victory of WWII to the Germans. Don't think the USSR would have been successful had the United States not intervened with the magnitude of force both militarily and economically.

Then you have someone like Teddy Roosevelt who himself went down as a Rough Rider to fight side by side with fellow Americans. John McCain, who was tortured for years in Vietnam, has a lot of war experience, yet he supports carpet bombing virtually the entire Middle East.

The idea that the leader should have a physical presence in battle as if that changes things is foolhardy. What happens if we have a President like an FDR that is handicapped and incapable of being on the front lines? So basically if we took your view of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and combined it with your Commander-in-Chief-has-to-be-in-battle amendment, foreigners could bomb the hell outta the United States and we could not, at least following your logic, attack unless our handicapped President could be there to do it.

And what about batshit crazy people like Teddy Roosevelt who WOULD go there himself and bomb anything? McCain has been to hell and back, yet he STILL supports war even though he's seen the worst of it. FDR claimed he hated war from his own experiences, yet in private he was desperately trying to "make war". War changes people, but it doesn't necessarily change whether or not to go to it.

[Vessol]

America would never have been able to go to war in World War II as FDR was stricken with polio. Expect FDR on the front lines? I think not..

http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/extreme_wheelchair_1.jpg

[Icymudpuppy]

Yeah, talk about unintended consequences.

America would never have been able to go to war in World War II as FDR was stricken with polio. Expect FDR on the front lines? I think not.. Thank you for handing the victory of WWII to the Germans. Don't think the USSR would have been successful had the United States not intervened with the magnitude of force both militarily and economically.

Then you have someone like Teddy Roosevelt who himself went down as a Rough Rider to fight side by side with fellow Americans. John McCain, who was tortured for years in Vietnam, has a lot of war experience, yet he supports carpet bombing virtually the entire Middle East.

The idea that the leader should have a physical presence in battle as if that changes things is foolhardy. What happens if we have a President like an FDR that is handicapped and incapable of being on the front lines? So basically if we took your view of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and combined it with your Commander-in-Chief-has-to-be-in-battle amendment, foreigners could bomb the hell outta the United States and we could not, at least following your logic, attack unless our handicapped President could be there to do it.

And what about batshit crazy people like Teddy Roosevelt who WOULD go there himself and bomb anything?

Look on the plus side. FDR would have been killed quickly, and we might have gotten someone better than Truman in '44.

[fisharmor]

I hate to put the burden of proof on you, but I've never heard of a champion system beyond the romanticization of the ancient era of honor and wisdom. Maybe in the past leaders got in dresses and rode unicorns into battle, I have no proof, but that doesn't mean they never do it.

Hans Talhoffer authored one of the few surviving medieval fencing manuals. There's no mention of a champion system, but there's plenty in there on judicial combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer
This has one of my favorite pics in it: in a man vs. woman duel, the man gets stuffed up to his waist in a hole in the ground and gets a club, while the woman gets to walk around and gets a stone wrapped up in a cloth.


[Goliath] stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, "Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.
....
Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. And the men of Israel and Judah rose with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gates of Ekron, so that the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron. And the people of Israel came back from chasing the Philistines, and they plundered their camp.

Sorry to diverge here Nate, but even in this example, neither side had much intention of keeping the bargain.
Which is really the reason why the idea of champions won't work.

[enoch150]

By "in person", I mean standing back and organizing things. There are few record instances I've seen of any true Warrior-Kings who fought in the thick of battle. That'd be a pretty fucking retarded thing to do, why else do you have soldiers? They are simple pawns to be killed so you aren't killed. Unless you're trying to create propaganda that makes it look like you understand the common soldiers plight that you yourself created.

Alexander the Great --> pretty fucking retarded.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/extreme_wheelchair_1.jpg

lolz!! :)

[Vessol]

Alexander the Great --> pretty fucking retarded.

Considering that he built an empire that collapsed within 10 years of his death, I wouldn't really consider him the most adroit leader in world history. One of the most important factors of being a dynastic autocratic leader is to ensure that you leave your heir a claim.

Also, Alexander did not personally lead his soldiers into battle. He was not in the front of his phalanx, risking getting stabbed at the end of a Persian spear. He was commanding troops from the rear where he could rationally make decisions on how the battle would be fought and then communicate that to his subordinates and on down the lines of command whom were more closer to the danger.

It's military basics 101. You don't put your chain of command in danger. Those who are lower on the chain of command must take much more danger and risks.

[fisharmor]

It's military basics 101. You don't put your chain of command in danger. Those who are lower on the chain of command must take much more danger and risks.

Several Grand Masters of the Knights of the Temple died in battle.
I haven't read any books on the Hospitallers yet but I'm pretty sure at least one did.
Vikings frequently led their warband into battle (if that's what you want to call murdering priests).
There are other examples, but they're mostly comparatively small conflicts.

[Vessol]

There will always be deviances away from the norm, but generally speaking it would be disadvantageous.

It would be like me saying that Ron Paul should forget media interviews and being a congressman, and just focus on going door to door to every house to talk with Americans. There is a strategic reason why he does what he does.

[enoch150]

Considering that he built an empire that collapsed within 10 years of his death, I wouldn't really consider him the most adroit leader in world history. One of the most important factors of being a dynastic autocratic leader is to ensure that you leave your heir a claim.

Also, Alexander did not personally lead his soldiers into battle. He was not in the front of his phalanx, risking getting stabbed at the end of a Persian spear. He was commanding troops from the rear where he could rationally make decisions on how the battle would be fought and then communicate that to his subordinates and on down the lines of command whom were more closer to the danger.

It's military basics 101. You don't put your chain of command in danger. Those who are lower on the chain of command must take much more danger and risks.

Not claiming to be a historian or anything here, but I'm pretty sure Alexander the Great was wounded several times in battle and almost died from wounds at least once. He was with the cavalry, not infantry. Don't know how true it is, but I heard once that he was the last leader of a country of any significant size to personally lead an army into battle and fight on the front lines.

Given that he died rather suddenly and quite young, I can't exactly blame him for not having his empire stabilized enough to last long when he died.

[Vessol]

Not claiming to be a historian or anything here, but I'm pretty sure Alexander the Great was wounded several times in battle and almost died from wounds at least once. He was with the cavalry, not infantry. Don't know how true it is, but I heard once that he was the last leader of a country of any significant size to personally lead an army into battle and fight on the front lines.

Given that he died rather suddenly and quite young, I can't exactly blame him for not having his empire stabilized enough to last long when he died.

You may be right, I'm not an expert on Alexander the Great.

[Diurdi]

Sending the commander in chief to front line battle in modern age would be incredibly stupid, as he'd have a damn big target on his head.
However if you wan't to make sure it's not just the Elite playing games, send the son or daughter of the commander in chief to the front lines.
That might make him/her think twice before initiating war (or not, because the elite may value their goals of total dominance over the life of their children).

[carnikava]

If you want to go that way, let's remember, that only armed men, who were able to fight battles had a chance to be citizens (i.e. participate in a decision to go to war). Some older men, who were unable to fight, but had experience, were also allowed to vote. This is classic Greek democracy. Even the great Pericles was just an army general, while being the most influential politician of his time. He could lead the army to the battle, but the decision to fight belonged to the Assembly (of citizens). I do not remember about his military specialty, but one thing is for sure: if he was a navy general, he might not lead a land campaign and vice versa.

Sorry, but the original post looks like a populist propaganda to me.

[mczerone]

The use of violence is not noble and we should demand more of our leaders. I cannot believe that on a forum like this advocating liberty we have people talking about how noble and conscious it is to be an leader who fights with his men. It is one of the more moronic debates I have seen. War is hell and should always be treated as such.

I argue from the position that if the leader inevitably will unleash this hell anyway, they should be forced themselves to be in the thick of it, risking their precious egos along with the nation's resources. In a world where the state still wages war, its the best way to keep leaders from using war as a policy tool.

[nayjevin]

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/black+sabbath/war+pigs_20019418.html

Black Sabbath 'War Pigs'


Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

[Fire11]

It's been repeated on RPFs that Saddam actually challenged Bush to a duel to settle the leadership of Iraq. Bush, the consummate coward, did not respond except by ordering other people to risk their lives for his goals.
Could you please provide the link to article or post?

[Fire11]

Sending the commander in chief to front line battle in modern age would be incredibly stupid, as he'd have a damn big target on his head.
Sending the army to front line battle in modern age would also be incredibly stupid when there are extremely dangerous weapons available.