Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 21, 2017 #1 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I was watching a doco on Hitler and my father commented "isnt a shame he didn't lead from the front, he could have stepped on a land mine and saved a lot of trouble" which got me thinking, the Crusade-era kings HAD to lead from the front or they'd not be followed at all, it was the Medieval Kings duty to lead his Knights etc into battle. When did that change? Did Cromwell's New Model Army spark the change? OR was it the age of empires where it became impossible for the king to be everywhere? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted January 21, 2017 #2 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Don't know but I'm watching Lord Cardigan lead from the front for his Charge of the Light Brigade on TV right now. (only saying 'cos it's a coincidence, is it not?) George II at the age of 60, was the last British sovereign to take such a role, at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743 in Germany, against the French. Edited January 21, 2017 by Eldorado 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted January 21, 2017 #3 Share Posted January 21, 2017 48 minutes ago, Eldorado said: Don't know but I'm watching Lord Cardigan lead from the front for his Charge of the Light Brigade on TV right now. (only saying 'cos it's a coincidence, is it not?) George II at the age of 60, was the last British sovereign to take such a role, at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743 in Germany, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yukabrother Posted January 21, 2017 #4 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Only when they die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted January 21, 2017 #5 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) You're watching 323 or 325 aren't you. That was to Eldorado, but the quote thing jammed. Edited January 21, 2017 by oldrover 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted January 21, 2017 #6 Share Posted January 21, 2017 1 minute ago, oldrover said: You're watching 323 or 325 aren't you. That was to Eldorado, but the quote thing jammed. It was on the other night and I recorded it. I watch war movies before watching my footie team, gets me in the mood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted January 21, 2017 #7 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I'm a Welsh rugby fan, and The Six Nations is almost here, so I suppose the best war film to prepare me for what I'm about to witness would be 'Journey's End'. Or 'Apocalypse Now', either really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 21, 2017 #8 Share Posted January 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: I was watching a doco on Hitler and my father commented "isnt a shame he didn't lead from the front, he could have stepped on a land mine and saved a lot of trouble" which got me thinking, the Crusade-era kings HAD to lead from the front or they'd not be followed at all, it was the Medieval Kings duty to lead his Knights etc into battle. When did that change? Did Cromwell's New Model Army spark the change? OR was it the age of empires where it became impossible for the king to be everywhere? It depends what you mean by "lead". As Eldorado pointed out, King George II was the last British/English monarch to lead a British/English army in battle, at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. But while he was the army commander it isn't clear to me whether he was actively involved in leading the soldiers into combat or commanded from the rear. If the latter is considered to meet the criteria, Napoleon led the French army at Waterloo in 1815 while still Emperor. There may be later examples, but none immediately come to mind. If the former is considered to meet the criteria, the last monarch I can think of being personally involved in the fighting was the Swedish King Charles XII who personally led his army into battle against various Russian, Polish, Saxon and Danish armies in the first two decades of the 18th century, and died when struck by a (likely enemy) bullet in a siege. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 21, 2017 #9 Share Posted January 21, 2017 It's perhaps worth noting that future kings have served in combat roles into the 20th century: for example, the future King George VI of Britain served as a midshipman on board HMS Collingwood at the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Also, Prince Phillip served throughout World War Two, Prince Andrew served during the Falklands War, and Prince Harry served in Afghanistan. And both Prince Charles and Prince William have served in the military without seeing active service. So the idea of royal military service is quite alive and well. Perhaps a more relevant question would be the amount of military service by political leaders. So, for example, in the case of the post-war USA, Harry Truman saw active service including combat (on the Western Front in World War One as an artillery officer), Dwight Eisenhower was a general who never saw combat, John Kennedy saw active duty including combat (see PT-109), Lyndon Johnson experienced combat once (in fairly irregular circumstances), Richard Nixon served in an Air Transport unit and never saw combat, Gerald Ford saw active duty, Jimmy Carter was in the US Navy for 10 years, and George Bush (elder) was a naval aviator who survived being shot down. Ronald Reagan and George Bush (junior) both had military careers that were fairly symbolic rather than active. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted January 21, 2017 #10 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Peter B said: Prince Andrew served during the Falklands War, and Prince Harry served in Afghanistan I do find what you've posted very interesting, but I would add that in the above cases, while they were there, I think their personal risk would have been far more closely managed than those non regal personnel. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted January 21, 2017 #11 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Peter B said: It depends what you mean by "lead". As Eldorado pointed out, King George II was the last British/English monarch to lead a British/English army in battle, at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. But while he was the army commander it isn't clear to me whether he was actively involved in leading the soldiers into combat or commanded from the rear. He did what his Generals told him to but was in among it, I believe. He also saw combat under Marlborough at Oudenarde. "The allied cavalry, led by Prince George, the Electoral Prince of Hanover (later King George II of England), then assaulted the few supporting French squadrons. During the fight Prince George’s horse was shot under him." Nice link: http://www.britishbattles.com/war-of-the-spanish-succession/battle-of-oudenarde/ Some guys enjoy fighting. Edited January 21, 2017 by Eldorado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted January 21, 2017 #12 Share Posted January 21, 2017 "DON'T WORRY MEN, I'LL BE RIGHT BEHIND YOU!" Because when it's time to turn and run, I'll be in front. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 21, 2017 #13 Share Posted January 21, 2017 6 hours ago, oldrover said: I do find what you've posted very interesting, but I would add that in the above cases, while they were there, I think their personal risk would have been far more closely managed than those non regal personnel. Prince Harry, yes, I agree with you. There was a bit of a brouhaha here in Australia a few years ago when it turned out that one of our trashy women's mags had inadvertently broken a voluntary embargo on his deployment: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2178687.htm But to my knowledge nothing particularly special was done with Prince Andrew; as a helicopter pilot one of his jobs involved flying off the stern of his ship to act as a missile decoy for incoming Exocet missiles. And young Prince Albert (the future King George VI) was a turret officer on his ship; if his turret had been struck by a shell his likelihood of survival would have been low (although, yes, at the time he wasn't heir to the throne). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 21, 2017 #14 Share Posted January 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Likely Guy said: "DON'T WORRY MEN, I'LL BE RIGHT BEHIND YOU!" Because when it's time to turn and run, I'll be in front. I think that's a bit unfair. Few kings are actually recorded as leading the flight from battle. Darius of Persia did so twice when fighting Alexander the Great, but I can't quickly think of any others since then. Remember, at least in medieval Europe, kings were trained from childhood in fighting arts, just like every other nobleman, and this tradition carried through long after the end of the age of knights. Likewise the Hellenistic kings in the centuries after Alexander the Great, and plenty of Roman/Byzantine emperors too, trained as soldiers. So, for example, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus may have been wounded in the backside while fleeing a defeat, but he was among the last to flee (and was as a result nearly captured). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted January 21, 2017 #15 Share Posted January 21, 2017 38 minutes ago, Peter B said: But to my knowledge nothing particularly special was done with Prince Andrew; as a helicopter pilot one of his jobs involved flying off the stern of his ship to act as a missile decoy for incoming Exocet missiles. Fair point, but again, it's not to our knowledge. I really cannot, and never will believe that a royal was used a missile decoy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted January 22, 2017 #16 Share Posted January 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Peter B said: I think that's a bit unfair. Few kings are actually recorded as leading the flight from battle. Darius of Persia did so twice when fighting Alexander the Great, but I can't quickly think of any others since then. Remember, at least in medieval Europe, kings were trained from childhood in fighting arts, just like every other nobleman, and this tradition carried through long after the end of the age of knights. Likewise the Hellenistic kings in the centuries after Alexander the Great, and plenty of Roman/Byzantine emperors too, trained as soldiers. So, for example, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus may have been wounded in the backside while fleeing a defeat, but he was among the last to flee (and was as a result nearly captured). Don't worry.I think, "DON'T WORRY MEN, I'LL BE RIGHT BEHIND YOU!" Because when it's time to turn and run, I'll be in front. ...might have been a Black Adder reference. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted January 22, 2017 #17 Share Posted January 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Peter B said: I think that's a bit unfair. Few kings are actually recorded as leading the flight from battle. Darius of Persia did so twice when fighting Alexander the Great, but I can't quickly think of any others since then. Remember, at least in medieval Europe, kings were trained from childhood in fighting arts, just like every other nobleman, and this tradition carried through long after the end of the age of knights. Likewise the Hellenistic kings in the centuries after Alexander the Great, and plenty of Roman/Byzantine emperors too, trained as soldiers. So, for example, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus may have been wounded in the backside while fleeing a defeat, but he was among the last to flee (and was as a result nearly captured). The three greatest Greek battles in my opinion were Thermopylae, Marathon and Salamis. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted January 22, 2017 #18 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, oldrover said: I do find what you've posted very interesting, but I would add that in the above cases, while they were there, I think their personal risk would have been far more closely managed than those non regal personnel. My point had already been posted, (note to self) read the whole thread before posting and not after Edited January 22, 2017 by hetrodoxly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted January 22, 2017 #19 Share Posted January 22, 2017 14 hours ago, oldrover said: Fair point, but again, it's not to our knowledge. I really cannot, and never will believe that a royal was used a missile decoy. Prince Andrew was tasked with carrying out dangerous missions as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War. He has said he is 'very lucky' to have survived. On one occasion, the only reason why an Argie missile didn't hit his helicopter was because it just about hit somebody else instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now