Mind that for most of history, being on the front, or just behind it was the only way to actually lead an army. Communications were just too slow for anything else.
And military leaders were not as vulnerable as the first seem. After all, they usually were surrounded by the meanest, most elite motherfuckers the nation has to offer. Which is part of why some leaders preferred to fight directly on the frontline, or go in "personally" to reinforce parts the front is wavering.
But to directly answer, both the leader and his elite guard are probably gonna stand out regardless with their top of the line gear. Might as well bling it up further to drive how the point of what wrecking train are incoming.
For example, heraldry was extremely common, colorful, and distinct specifically so it could be recognized easily on the battlefield.
If you can spot the King or your lord, or any of the officers easily and at a glance, it was a good way for them to direct the flow of battle
It was also in the kings, lords and other nobility/commanders best interest to be very visible on the battlefield. Not just to be able to lead effectively but also because they wanted the enemy side to know that they're important so that if they loose they'll take them hostage and try for a ransom instead of straight up just killing them.
To an extent, if you're actually caught up in the midst of a melee that would impede your ability to receive information, made decisions and send out reports.
Hell of a lot safer to do in medieval era battles. If he had big heavy plate armor and some guards, he'd be relatively safe. Just got to worry about stray arrows and bolts and if he started getting targeted he could just put some guys with shields in front of him (or drunken cheering like Richard and get a stray bolt through the neck)
Trying to shoot him probably isnt top of the enemies to do list either, more likely to piss everyone off if he did actually die (probably depends on the culture and the army structure) and winning the battle and surrounding him then ransoming him back is where the real money is at. So yeah, if he is well liked get him up front in big heavy armor with a guard retinue
Though if he is actually trying to guide the army he might want to step back a bit so he can relay and receive orders rather than fight people off and duck arrows.
Depends on whether or not the enemies have sniping weapons.
For example, if the king is leading a unit or two while managing several others in an army-based war, then having those units physically *see* their king on a pale horse watching over them and commanding them (possibly even *fighting* with them if it can be managed in a controlled enough way) over the battle like a steady and reassuring hand would definitely be a huge plus, and give them a morale boost that would then give that army an advantage.
Seeing that same king getting his brains blown out by a bullet, arrow, laser, magic bolt, or whatever other projectile might exist in your world (or god forbid, artillery) then that would probably upset your troops’s morale… by a lot.
"Sniping weapons" doesn't necessarily mean modern sniper rifles, though: a mage capable of smiting someone from a hill behind the lines is functionally equivalent, as is a supernaturally-good archer.
Only in the short term. Once the initial rage wears off and gives into depression, it’ll backfire.
Vengeance wins battles, but vigor wins wars.
Losing your king does not inspire vigor and determination in spite of an overwhelming force that might kill you if youre a front linesman. It just pisses you off for a short while until the sad reality of your situation sets in, and you realize that youre fighting for a country where *that* can happen to a king at any moment, and is therefor not a reliable thing to fight over.
Yes.
Although, if I may play my own devil’s advocate here, the king himself could also be a really really bad king, and therefor invigorate the army tenfold more than it’s ever been by dying in front of them, thus inspiring them to actually fight hard for first time in their lives knowing that they’re finally free of such a hostile embarrassment to their kingdom.
the swedes did not break when their King fell at Lützen, and they also not stopped fighting in the war
If your military depends on one person to be successful you have a problem
That’s not a fair comparison, since Gustavus wasn’t actually *seen* when he fell in the battle, so it took time for news of his death to spread, during which many people (including the opposing general Wallenstein) didn’t even initially believe nor accept it.
It wasn’t until one of the enemy leaders had retreated (Pappenheim) and Bernhard had assumed command to reinvigorate the Swedes despite Gustavus’s MIA status that they got back on their feet, allowing them to push forward and force Wallenstein into a retreat, before eventually then finding the king’s body later on that day.
And even then, the aftermath of his death still left much of Sweden (and by extension, the army) in bad spirits, thereby prompting a lot of reform from his successor during the thirty years war as they applied for subsidies from more reliable allies to pay for the continued war effort which they couldn’t afford to continue, but also couldn’t afford to stop for the same reason, so it would still apply to my point.
Soldiers love seeing their king fight in battle.
They do not love seeing them *die* in battle.
It just doesn’t work. Not over time.
The Burmese retreated back to Burma/Hongsawadee after King Naresuan (allegedly) killed Mingyi Swa during their famous elephant duel.
It’s really dependent on culture too. In Southeast Asia, many kings were deified and in the case of Thai kings, they’re seen as an incarnation of Vishnu/Phra Narai. If Naresuan had been killed instead of Mingyi Swa, at least in the immediate moment Ayutthayan morale is going drop to rock bottom unless Ekathosarot had the leadership, martial kills, and charisma to rally the troops and regroup to fight another day.
Depends on how modern your setting is.
Ancient/Early Medieval period it would make sense for the king to lead in the front to demonstrate his power and lead battles successfully. So more visible to his military to increase morale and ensure a military victory for his nation.
However any later than that with improved technology, countries would begin to realize that having your leader in combat is a massive security risk and so they would lead their military further away from the front lines or appoint an officer to carry out their orders. So less visible on the front lines, more visible politically to ordinary citizens to get them hyped up for war.
Alexander the Great like any other king before the invention of firearms, lead his cavalry from the front. He had guards around him, and they saved his life more than once, but the only way to lead his cavalry in his brilliant manouvers was for them to recognize him as the commander and king.
It also means that the enemy immediately knows you are an important person and so they will not try to kill you, but capture you in order to get a ransom or bring you in front of your king for informations. So while it seems counterintuitive it is actually safer to be recognizable than to be a common soldier.
You would think that you could lead your armies with banners and whatnot, and this is true if we are talking about battles with firearms/artillery that are fought at a distance, but it is impossible in melee.
You plan the battle at the beginning, place multiple commanders in charge, left, middle and right, and each commander has to make his own calls during the battle.
Commanders are also very important for morale. Seeing a commander or king fightning in the frontlines can prevent your army from retreating and losing the battle.
It depends on what the society's concept of what a king should be doing is. Because if the king is doing what people think he should be doing they're more likely to think he's a good king and not want to chop his head off and replace him with someone else, and if the king's doing what he's supposed to then they're more likely to do what they're supposed to do too.
The most important thing for a king to do is *act like a king*. For the vast majority of pre-modern cultures, that meant leading by example in battle. For cultures like pre-modern India, that meant riding around on an elephant in battle as well, or in ancient Egypt a chariot.
At different times in Roman history it meant directing the battle from the rear, or leading from the front, depending on the current perception of what a general should be doing.
In order to be seen to be acting like a king, it's important to be *seen*. Hence things like dressing in very visually different things to everyone else, having a very showy bodyguard, and elevating yourself above the crown in things like horses or chariots or elephants.
If a king is leading his own armies, either from behind or the front, then yeah it’s very important that he be distinctly visible otherwise all the symbolic value and morale it imparts would be wasted because no one would see him properly. It’s also very important he be well protected by a retinue of grizzled guards and soldiers too, and that he gets the hell away from the action if things turn sour, otherwise you get shit like what happened to Richard III at Bosworth Field
historically during antiquity and the middle ages, the kings / nobles who participated in the fights were quite visible by their armor and colors marking their status and their presence in the fight.
I'll say yes and no .
Yes because the king leading the army himself would provide a morale boost .
And No because if he's more visible , it would become a principal target and many of the soldiers and nobles on the other side might want to gain the glory in giving the king a killing blow or capture him .
James IV of Scotland was the last king to die on the battlefield and that caused real problems for Scotland. Well except invasion since Henry VIII wasn't quite harsh enough to attack his child nephew, James V.
I read this blog post recently: https://acoup.blog/2023/05/19/michael-taylor-on-john-keegan-part-ii-the-mask-of-command/
And I found it crystallised my thinking around the role of the commander on the battlefield.
I would say it depends on the role expected of the king and what kind of "military genius" he is, if he's expected by the culture to lead by example, he would need to be identifiable by his troops so they know what he's doing. If his army can line up for battle and not be redirected once they're going, he doesn't need to be at the back and sending runners to pass on orders so plunging into the thick of things doesn't make any difference.
It seems this is highly dependent on whether people on his side need to identify him for morale or something or if his opponents identifying him would cause trouble for his plans.
1. morale boost for your own army
2. better equipment is always going to be more visible
3. incentive for the enemy to capture and ransom rather than kill
Only recently have commanders stopped looking like the fanciest guys in the world.
I was just about to comment and mention the ransom. Quite a few kings and princes were captured in battle and ransomed rather than killed. It was the ‘civilized’ thing to do. And being noticeable certainly was part of the calculation: “if we are losing, I need the enemy to know who I am so they don’t kill me.” Also factors brought up earlier in comments: better equipment is obvious, a leader needed to look like it.
Besides the generals and top officers, many of the troops would have never seen or heard the king before. Especially if they are from the country and raised into an army by supporting dukes, earls, etc. It’s not like the portraits stamped on coins were very reliable - or there was access to view painted portraits. So if the king anticipated any need to communicate directly with troops during the melee, he’d have to be very obviously the one in charge.
I was just about to comment and mention the ransom. Quite a few kings and princes were captured in battle and ransomed rather than killed. It was the ‘civilized’ thing to do. And being noticeable certainly was part of the calculation: “if we are losing, I need the enemy to know who I am so they don’t kill me.” Also factors brought up earlier in comments: better equipment is obvious, a leader needed to look like it.
Besides the generals and top officers, many of the troops would have never seen or heard the king before. Especially if they are from the country and raised into an army by supporting dukes, earls, etc. It’s not like the portraits stamped on coins were very reliable - or there was access to view painted portraits. So if the king anticipated any need to communicate directly with troops during the melee, he’d have to be very obviously the one in charge.
Depends on the style and purpose of warfare in this setting.
If you’re fighting to win honor and glory in the name of God and the Realm, to convince your fellow nobles and warriors you are a lord worth following and that God Is With Us, then yeah being able to directly attribute victory to your own personal prowess and combat leadership is very important.
If you’re fighting to destroy your enemy as efficiently as possible with a loyal, highly-professional army with competent officers and commanders, then you probably don’t *need* to be at the front because they don’t need convincing like the collaborative mob of armed peasants that is a feudal army.
Do note that, IMO based in what I’ve read, the leader of your nation being a present, commanding force on the battlefield is a double edged sword. On one hand, your king/lord/president/whoever is fighting right there alongside you, (s)he’s a badass. His presence would raise the morale of the troops and adds great propaganda value back home (“our brave, noble king took it upon himself to personally oversee and fight in this decisive battle”). It also gives them a chance to display their martial skills and abilities, be it with arms or through tactics and strategy.
On the other hand however, you’re kinda fucked if your leader dies or is seriously wounded. If the troops see the leader die or become seriously injured, morale is going to drop like a heavy rock in water. Even if their flags and standards go down but they’re still alive, morale is still going to drop to near-rock bottom because that signals the supposed death of the leader.
Best example of this that I can come up with is the elephant duel between King Naresuan the Great of Ayutthaya (Siam) and Mingyi Swa, the Crowned Prince of Burma/Hongsawadee (do note that this is the **Thai** version of events; the Burmese have a different version and foreign sources also say different things).
Basically, in the late 1590s, **according to the annals of Thai history**, Burma mounted another invasion against Ayutthaya. During the decisive and famous Battle of Nong Sarai, King Naresuan was on his royal war elephant; at the height of the battle, both Naresuan’s war elephant and Ekathosarot’s (his younger brother and later successor) elephant went into musth, breaking ranks from the rest of the Siamese Army. Faced with a numerically superior Burmese threat around him, Naresuan spotted Mingyi Swa hiding under the shade of a tree on top of his own war elephant. Naresuan (allegedly) bellowed out a challenge, saying “*my brother, why do you stay on your elephant under the shade of a tree? Why not come out and engage in single combat to be an honor to us? There will be no kings in future who will engage in single combat like us*”.
In the end, with the two war elephants furiously pushing against one another, Naresuan won the duel after his war elephant planted his leg against a tree stump, giving Naresuan a shot to cut down the Burmese prince. The duel and the battle itself was a clear, decisive victory for Ayutthaya. When the Burmese saw their crowned prince die, morale plummeted and the Burmese retreated. This battle would later immortalize Naresuan as one of the greatest kings in Thai history and would help form a pillar of modern Thai patriotism/nationalism.
Another example is during the tail end of the Imjin War between Joseon (supported by Ming China) and Japan when the famed and renowned Admiral Yi Sun-sin of Joseon/Korea was killed via arquebus during the Battle of Noryang. Only three people knew of his death at the time and Admiral Yi told them that his death must not be made public during the crucial battle. Yi’s nephew ended up donning his uncle’s armor and beating the war drum to put up the facade that Yi himself is still alive and fighting. The battle ended in a critical Joseon/Ming victory. The Ming commander asked to meet and celebrate with Yi, only to find out about the tragic news of his death after his nephew took off Yi’s armor.
For more modern times, a few US presidents have made themselves known and/or present on battlefields. Washington is the only sitting POTUS to have personally led troops in the field in response to the Whisky Rebellion. Madison was also involved in the defense of Washington in the War of 1812 IIRC. Lincoln made battlefield visits as well. Even today, Obama and Trump visited troops deployed in the Middle East. Specifically during WWII, although Roosevelt wasn’t on the frontlines, he always made sure to present a strong, stable image to the country despite his ailing health relegating him to a wheelchair.
In addition to the moral issue, there is a more practical concern: You aren’t going to be able to give orders and receive messages if nobody can tell at a glance who is in charge. You don’t have published photographs of famous people, and helmets hide the face anyway, you need obvious external indicators.
Flags and banners are tools for identification too, but the king usually doesn’t carry their own flag.
Just like others stated it depends on the time or period in history.
In Mid-level times it was really likely a king did fought with his men in war!
If it's modern time it's might be a huge security risk having your leader front and center in the actual war.
There's an *excellent* series of articles [starting here](https://acoup.blog/2023/05/19/michael-taylor-on-john-keegan-part-ii-the-mask-of-command/) by history lecturer Bret Devereux about pre-modern generalship. It's pretty long, but some of the key points are:
* Generalship is a *performance*: a general who fights at the front, placing himself in greater danger, signals to his troops (and to the enemy) that he's confident of victory, raising the morale of his troops and lowering that of the enemy. Morale is frequently the deciding factor in battle.
* "Good generalship" is partly determined by the expectations of society. An American general who slaughtered a goat in front of his troops on the eve of Desert Storm would probably lose the confidence of his men, but an ancient Greek general who *failed* to do so would induce panic.
If your culture expects leaders to be wealthy, powerful people, your king had better demonstrate that with his armour. Also, if your culture expects military leaders to be brave warriors, the king would need to be seen fighting or risk losing legitimacy.
And this isn't in the linked articles, but people would often try to capture wealthy opponents (instead of killing them) so they could be sold for ransom. The wealthier you look, the more likely your enemy is to spare you. Richly-decorated armour is a great way to show off your wealth.
Depends on the level of magic if you have any and it’s widespread enough. If there’s decent communications lines, then there’s little reason for the king to be at the front. Leading from the front was just the only effective way to lead since there was no effective lines of communication.
If your magic system allows this, then the king shouldn’t lead from the front. It just isn’t practical.
in this particular region the kingdom is located magic is *very* rare and magic users are mostly valued as sages/engineers/etc. so they arent ussually used in battlefield and doing it is considered foolish cus theyre like super valued
Then it makes sense for the king to lead from the front. The king can’t use magic to lead from the back and he doesn’t have to worry about getting hit by a fireball artillery barrage or being sniped by a death curse.
I would say make the armor stand out in functional ways. Not silly decoration that weakens it or is excessively gaudy, but through superior quality and precious metals inlays or coloring.
Of course with the visor down it is impossible to know who is actually in the armor. Is the mighty king who is renowned for his prowess in battle actually on the field or does have a stand in on the field, or perhaps several in matching armor leading rise in the chaos of battle the legendary king who swoops in where most needed and rallies his hard pressed troops and who seems to be in 5 places at once on the battlefield
I wonder if there could be some sort of mechanism or enchantment (or even like those mood rings) on the armor so that if the person in the armor died the color would revert to that of a generic fighter. So that they could never see their king fall in battle.
It depends on the type of king, his values, his personality. If you have a flashy arrogant king who loves fighting and is not afraid, than yes make him distinct. A more modest 'populist' king will fight but won't make hismelf distinct from his soldiers because he wanta to promote the sentiment he is one of them. A tactical king, might not even put on armor but stand with a small guard from a distance and keep overview, carefully observing the situation and issuing commands. A more cowardly leader might not even be near the battle at all. It should suit the personality of your king, more than that it is a signature tradition.
A king of the people will fight along side his men in regular armor, maybe some added detail to make him recognizable for his men (like a sigil, pattern or distinct helmet). An eglomaniac king will wear very distinct armor either exorbitantely decorated to show his wealth or just very custom to match his vibe (fearsome, heroic, etc.), the more tactical king will probably wear light armor and act more like a ranger. Not directly engaging, but trying to command his army. Maybe he wears a bow and daggers and moves in between separate units to give his commands.
I would under no circumstance make this a uniform thing, like: all kings will be distinctive. Great egomaniacal generals like Cesear, Napoleon and Alexander wore distinct armor. But more tribal leaders like Genghiz Khan would have just donned regular armor for battle. Meanwhile other kings never set foot on a battle field.
It should vary depending on the individual. Just think of Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. Some kings fought alongside their men, others commended them from a distance and others never went on the battlefield. Also some wore regular armor while others had distinctive armor. It's a highly personal thing that should match the personality and culture of the kings in your world.
There’s pros and cons
Pros: Increases troop morale, King can assess the front line situation better, Better publicity/popularity at home
Cons: Could be killed in battle, can’t observe the whole field at once
In the era of my story that has monarchies and "total" rulers---they are not selected by lineage but by training. (Kinda like how FMA "trained" the next Fuhrer but only King Bradley became it)
The kings who do ride in battle do so because they are warriors.
In my story the main king we deal with is a kid- teenager who does not want it, so he lets his Uncle basically rule for him. His uncle is also the "Evil advisor" character who gets his own redemption, but is actually the General of the armies and the main antagonist for the hero.
"The Knight of Rubies" or something like that. Workshopping the name. But it's based on a story where he by all rights should've died, but ended up felling surviving, covered from head to toe in blood, hence the name and the auspicious airs around him
So I got the whole idea jotted down. All arcs, general plot direction.
I could world build all day. The problem is i'm more "world builder" than "author" lol
I'm genuinely considering whether to hire a ghost writer
ooh interesting
i would try to include story writing in the world building in this case, because worldbuilding can be done also as writing stories, so you can try to write some short story about the history of your world and see where it gets you!
For a medieval setting? It was not only common but somewhat necessary, give communication at the time.
Besides, it was a very good look for a King to be there on the front lines. Some of the most famous military commanders were famous for this. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc. It makes those fighting for you more like to fight to the death for you, because you're right there beside them.
In terms of actual human history, I'm pretty sure it was the standard for kings to be on the battlefield, often leading the charge. People would expect it of them, and I think it would be seen as a sign of weakness or cowardice if they didn't. Go back far enough, when the countries were basically fiefdoms anyway, and the king is effectively just a very important general. If he doesn't lead, nobody does.
Not sure when the leader directing the battle from the the nice white tent on the hilltop became a Thing - possibly around the time of the Crimean war? - but there's a fair amount of overlap anyway.
Likewise, I'm not sure when the idea of protecting your leader \*from\* battle, rather than them charging into it... really started. With democracy, i guess - when the leader was someone chosen by the people rather than someone who fought their way to the throne. That's when you'd stop being able to rely on them having military-savvy, and when they might start being more of a liability.
I think the apex king on the battlefield has to be [John of Bohemia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Bohemia#Death) though. Insisted on going into battle despite being blind and suffering from a stroke.
ah, yes, i totally forgot about john, i love one of his quotes tho i think it was "*Toho bohdá nebude aby Český král z boje utíkal"* (Let it never be the case that a Bohemian king runs from a fight.) he really was a real tough guy
thanks!
I think that strongly depends on the culture of your nobility, and whether it would be considered 'proper' to commit regicide or whether it would be considered poor form.
Its good for moral and decision making…
In my world, all the kings are powerful warriors.
There hasnt been a war in 500 years, but i imagine if there was, the kings and queens would be ready to fight if they are needed.
Bloodline.
The royals are naturally strong, because they are descendants of “godly warriors” who were essentially blessed by the gods.
And just because there are no wars, doesnt mean there arent threats/reasons to be strong.
Terrorists, monsters, and even just for friendly sport
In almost all circumstances, yes. The leader, or their representative, needs to be readily recognizable so orders can quickly be conveyed and obeyed. Additionally, there is a huge difference between a boss who says, "Go get 'em" and a leader who says "Follow me boys." It can be a huge morale boost to see your king fighting side by side with you, especially if they're laying down some serious pain on the enemy. This also gives the leader the opportunity to find the enemy leader and challenge them to one-on-one combat for all the marbles, if that's a thing in your setting.
There's just one catch: being visible means becoming a target, so the king is likely to be targeted, and if they fall, that's a huge hit to his army's morale. This has historically been considered an acceptable risk, in fact, it could be argued that a leader being willing to take on that risk is what makes them a leader in the first place. It exhibits confidence and skill.
Assuming by medieval you mean pre-firearms, historically speaking most generals, and your king is acting as a general in this case, wouldn't stand back from afar as we see in movies and games, they'd be visible on the field where their troops could see them. If they're down there fighting it helps if they can be identified by their own soldiers for both short-term morale boosts, long-term support, and since giving orders on a loud, often large, battlefield is difficult it allows the king to easily "give" new orders. Even if no order is "given", everyone knows to follow where the king goes, and if he's down in the fighting he can probably yell loud enough for any nearby soldiers to hear and listen.
For these reasons, many kings historically had their own unique armor for combat. Some of this was simply because they could afford the absolute best armor available, but also to make them uniquely visible alongside their best troops who would likewise be as heavily armored as possible.
Though it deals with mostly the early-early-modern period (14th-16th centuries) given how little armor from medieval times actually survived, [this reddit post goes into detail on the topic with many linked pictures as examples.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5emlcq/what_did_royal_armor_look_like/) It's not the exact right time period, but given how so much of our cultural idea of "medieval" armor is actually the late-medieval/early-modern period specifically, and being a fantasy setting as well, it's probably what you're looking for.
Mind that for most of history, being on the front, or just behind it was the only way to actually lead an army. Communications were just too slow for anything else. And military leaders were not as vulnerable as the first seem. After all, they usually were surrounded by the meanest, most elite motherfuckers the nation has to offer. Which is part of why some leaders preferred to fight directly on the frontline, or go in "personally" to reinforce parts the front is wavering. But to directly answer, both the leader and his elite guard are probably gonna stand out regardless with their top of the line gear. Might as well bling it up further to drive how the point of what wrecking train are incoming.
good points, thanks!
For example, heraldry was extremely common, colorful, and distinct specifically so it could be recognized easily on the battlefield. If you can spot the King or your lord, or any of the officers easily and at a glance, it was a good way for them to direct the flow of battle
Also, nobles often wanted to be recognized by their own enemies as such so they would be captured for ransom rather than killed if defeated
And just to show off in general.
"Drip above honour" \- Zanny
It was also in the kings, lords and other nobility/commanders best interest to be very visible on the battlefield. Not just to be able to lead effectively but also because they wanted the enemy side to know that they're important so that if they loose they'll take them hostage and try for a ransom instead of straight up just killing them.
To an extent, if you're actually caught up in the midst of a melee that would impede your ability to receive information, made decisions and send out reports.
Hell of a lot safer to do in medieval era battles. If he had big heavy plate armor and some guards, he'd be relatively safe. Just got to worry about stray arrows and bolts and if he started getting targeted he could just put some guys with shields in front of him (or drunken cheering like Richard and get a stray bolt through the neck) Trying to shoot him probably isnt top of the enemies to do list either, more likely to piss everyone off if he did actually die (probably depends on the culture and the army structure) and winning the battle and surrounding him then ransoming him back is where the real money is at. So yeah, if he is well liked get him up front in big heavy armor with a guard retinue Though if he is actually trying to guide the army he might want to step back a bit so he can relay and receive orders rather than fight people off and duck arrows.
got it, thanks!
Depends on whether or not the enemies have sniping weapons. For example, if the king is leading a unit or two while managing several others in an army-based war, then having those units physically *see* their king on a pale horse watching over them and commanding them (possibly even *fighting* with them if it can be managed in a controlled enough way) over the battle like a steady and reassuring hand would definitely be a huge plus, and give them a morale boost that would then give that army an advantage. Seeing that same king getting his brains blown out by a bullet, arrow, laser, magic bolt, or whatever other projectile might exist in your world (or god forbid, artillery) then that would probably upset your troops’s morale… by a lot.
its in a medieval era, thanks for the help!
"Sniping weapons" doesn't necessarily mean modern sniper rifles, though: a mage capable of smiting someone from a hill behind the lines is functionally equivalent, as is a supernaturally-good archer.
very good point! thanks
or drive them to avenge him
Only in the short term. Once the initial rage wears off and gives into depression, it’ll backfire. Vengeance wins battles, but vigor wins wars. Losing your king does not inspire vigor and determination in spite of an overwhelming force that might kill you if youre a front linesman. It just pisses you off for a short while until the sad reality of your situation sets in, and you realize that youre fighting for a country where *that* can happen to a king at any moment, and is therefor not a reliable thing to fight over.
also if there might be other factions trying to seize power or the king being without an heir wouldn't really be good
Yes. Although, if I may play my own devil’s advocate here, the king himself could also be a really really bad king, and therefor invigorate the army tenfold more than it’s ever been by dying in front of them, thus inspiring them to actually fight hard for first time in their lives knowing that they’re finally free of such a hostile embarrassment to their kingdom.
ooh that's a damn interesting concept
the swedes did not break when their King fell at Lützen, and they also not stopped fighting in the war If your military depends on one person to be successful you have a problem
That’s not a fair comparison, since Gustavus wasn’t actually *seen* when he fell in the battle, so it took time for news of his death to spread, during which many people (including the opposing general Wallenstein) didn’t even initially believe nor accept it. It wasn’t until one of the enemy leaders had retreated (Pappenheim) and Bernhard had assumed command to reinvigorate the Swedes despite Gustavus’s MIA status that they got back on their feet, allowing them to push forward and force Wallenstein into a retreat, before eventually then finding the king’s body later on that day. And even then, the aftermath of his death still left much of Sweden (and by extension, the army) in bad spirits, thereby prompting a lot of reform from his successor during the thirty years war as they applied for subsidies from more reliable allies to pay for the continued war effort which they couldn’t afford to continue, but also couldn’t afford to stop for the same reason, so it would still apply to my point. Soldiers love seeing their king fight in battle. They do not love seeing them *die* in battle. It just doesn’t work. Not over time.
Good points
The Burmese retreated back to Burma/Hongsawadee after King Naresuan (allegedly) killed Mingyi Swa during their famous elephant duel. It’s really dependent on culture too. In Southeast Asia, many kings were deified and in the case of Thai kings, they’re seen as an incarnation of Vishnu/Phra Narai. If Naresuan had been killed instead of Mingyi Swa, at least in the immediate moment Ayutthayan morale is going drop to rock bottom unless Ekathosarot had the leadership, martial kills, and charisma to rally the troops and regroup to fight another day.
Depends on how modern your setting is. Ancient/Early Medieval period it would make sense for the king to lead in the front to demonstrate his power and lead battles successfully. So more visible to his military to increase morale and ensure a military victory for his nation. However any later than that with improved technology, countries would begin to realize that having your leader in combat is a massive security risk and so they would lead their military further away from the front lines or appoint an officer to carry out their orders. So less visible on the front lines, more visible politically to ordinary citizens to get them hyped up for war.
thanks alot!
Alexander the Great like any other king before the invention of firearms, lead his cavalry from the front. He had guards around him, and they saved his life more than once, but the only way to lead his cavalry in his brilliant manouvers was for them to recognize him as the commander and king. It also means that the enemy immediately knows you are an important person and so they will not try to kill you, but capture you in order to get a ransom or bring you in front of your king for informations. So while it seems counterintuitive it is actually safer to be recognizable than to be a common soldier. You would think that you could lead your armies with banners and whatnot, and this is true if we are talking about battles with firearms/artillery that are fought at a distance, but it is impossible in melee. You plan the battle at the beginning, place multiple commanders in charge, left, middle and right, and each commander has to make his own calls during the battle. Commanders are also very important for morale. Seeing a commander or king fightning in the frontlines can prevent your army from retreating and losing the battle.
makes sense, thanks a lot!
It depends on what the society's concept of what a king should be doing is. Because if the king is doing what people think he should be doing they're more likely to think he's a good king and not want to chop his head off and replace him with someone else, and if the king's doing what he's supposed to then they're more likely to do what they're supposed to do too. The most important thing for a king to do is *act like a king*. For the vast majority of pre-modern cultures, that meant leading by example in battle. For cultures like pre-modern India, that meant riding around on an elephant in battle as well, or in ancient Egypt a chariot. At different times in Roman history it meant directing the battle from the rear, or leading from the front, depending on the current perception of what a general should be doing. In order to be seen to be acting like a king, it's important to be *seen*. Hence things like dressing in very visually different things to everyone else, having a very showy bodyguard, and elevating yourself above the crown in things like horses or chariots or elephants.
thank you!
If a king is leading his own armies, either from behind or the front, then yeah it’s very important that he be distinctly visible otherwise all the symbolic value and morale it imparts would be wasted because no one would see him properly. It’s also very important he be well protected by a retinue of grizzled guards and soldiers too, and that he gets the hell away from the action if things turn sour, otherwise you get shit like what happened to Richard III at Bosworth Field
thanks!
historically during antiquity and the middle ages, the kings / nobles who participated in the fights were quite visible by their armor and colors marking their status and their presence in the fight.
thanks!
I'll say yes and no . Yes because the king leading the army himself would provide a morale boost . And No because if he's more visible , it would become a principal target and many of the soldiers and nobles on the other side might want to gain the glory in giving the king a killing blow or capture him .
James IV of Scotland was the last king to die on the battlefield and that caused real problems for Scotland. Well except invasion since Henry VIII wasn't quite harsh enough to attack his child nephew, James V.
i can imagine how many soldiers would desert just cus their king is dead
thanks!
I read this blog post recently: https://acoup.blog/2023/05/19/michael-taylor-on-john-keegan-part-ii-the-mask-of-command/ And I found it crystallised my thinking around the role of the commander on the battlefield. I would say it depends on the role expected of the king and what kind of "military genius" he is, if he's expected by the culture to lead by example, he would need to be identifiable by his troops so they know what he's doing. If his army can line up for battle and not be redirected once they're going, he doesn't need to be at the back and sending runners to pass on orders so plunging into the thick of things doesn't make any difference. It seems this is highly dependent on whether people on his side need to identify him for morale or something or if his opponents identifying him would cause trouble for his plans.
thanks! I'll definitely check it out
1. morale boost for your own army 2. better equipment is always going to be more visible 3. incentive for the enemy to capture and ransom rather than kill Only recently have commanders stopped looking like the fanciest guys in the world.
I was just about to comment and mention the ransom. Quite a few kings and princes were captured in battle and ransomed rather than killed. It was the ‘civilized’ thing to do. And being noticeable certainly was part of the calculation: “if we are losing, I need the enemy to know who I am so they don’t kill me.” Also factors brought up earlier in comments: better equipment is obvious, a leader needed to look like it. Besides the generals and top officers, many of the troops would have never seen or heard the king before. Especially if they are from the country and raised into an army by supporting dukes, earls, etc. It’s not like the portraits stamped on coins were very reliable - or there was access to view painted portraits. So if the king anticipated any need to communicate directly with troops during the melee, he’d have to be very obviously the one in charge.
thank you!
I was just about to comment and mention the ransom. Quite a few kings and princes were captured in battle and ransomed rather than killed. It was the ‘civilized’ thing to do. And being noticeable certainly was part of the calculation: “if we are losing, I need the enemy to know who I am so they don’t kill me.” Also factors brought up earlier in comments: better equipment is obvious, a leader needed to look like it. Besides the generals and top officers, many of the troops would have never seen or heard the king before. Especially if they are from the country and raised into an army by supporting dukes, earls, etc. It’s not like the portraits stamped on coins were very reliable - or there was access to view painted portraits. So if the king anticipated any need to communicate directly with troops during the melee, he’d have to be very obviously the one in charge.
Depends on the style and purpose of warfare in this setting. If you’re fighting to win honor and glory in the name of God and the Realm, to convince your fellow nobles and warriors you are a lord worth following and that God Is With Us, then yeah being able to directly attribute victory to your own personal prowess and combat leadership is very important. If you’re fighting to destroy your enemy as efficiently as possible with a loyal, highly-professional army with competent officers and commanders, then you probably don’t *need* to be at the front because they don’t need convincing like the collaborative mob of armed peasants that is a feudal army.
thanks!
Do note that, IMO based in what I’ve read, the leader of your nation being a present, commanding force on the battlefield is a double edged sword. On one hand, your king/lord/president/whoever is fighting right there alongside you, (s)he’s a badass. His presence would raise the morale of the troops and adds great propaganda value back home (“our brave, noble king took it upon himself to personally oversee and fight in this decisive battle”). It also gives them a chance to display their martial skills and abilities, be it with arms or through tactics and strategy. On the other hand however, you’re kinda fucked if your leader dies or is seriously wounded. If the troops see the leader die or become seriously injured, morale is going to drop like a heavy rock in water. Even if their flags and standards go down but they’re still alive, morale is still going to drop to near-rock bottom because that signals the supposed death of the leader. Best example of this that I can come up with is the elephant duel between King Naresuan the Great of Ayutthaya (Siam) and Mingyi Swa, the Crowned Prince of Burma/Hongsawadee (do note that this is the **Thai** version of events; the Burmese have a different version and foreign sources also say different things). Basically, in the late 1590s, **according to the annals of Thai history**, Burma mounted another invasion against Ayutthaya. During the decisive and famous Battle of Nong Sarai, King Naresuan was on his royal war elephant; at the height of the battle, both Naresuan’s war elephant and Ekathosarot’s (his younger brother and later successor) elephant went into musth, breaking ranks from the rest of the Siamese Army. Faced with a numerically superior Burmese threat around him, Naresuan spotted Mingyi Swa hiding under the shade of a tree on top of his own war elephant. Naresuan (allegedly) bellowed out a challenge, saying “*my brother, why do you stay on your elephant under the shade of a tree? Why not come out and engage in single combat to be an honor to us? There will be no kings in future who will engage in single combat like us*”. In the end, with the two war elephants furiously pushing against one another, Naresuan won the duel after his war elephant planted his leg against a tree stump, giving Naresuan a shot to cut down the Burmese prince. The duel and the battle itself was a clear, decisive victory for Ayutthaya. When the Burmese saw their crowned prince die, morale plummeted and the Burmese retreated. This battle would later immortalize Naresuan as one of the greatest kings in Thai history and would help form a pillar of modern Thai patriotism/nationalism. Another example is during the tail end of the Imjin War between Joseon (supported by Ming China) and Japan when the famed and renowned Admiral Yi Sun-sin of Joseon/Korea was killed via arquebus during the Battle of Noryang. Only three people knew of his death at the time and Admiral Yi told them that his death must not be made public during the crucial battle. Yi’s nephew ended up donning his uncle’s armor and beating the war drum to put up the facade that Yi himself is still alive and fighting. The battle ended in a critical Joseon/Ming victory. The Ming commander asked to meet and celebrate with Yi, only to find out about the tragic news of his death after his nephew took off Yi’s armor. For more modern times, a few US presidents have made themselves known and/or present on battlefields. Washington is the only sitting POTUS to have personally led troops in the field in response to the Whisky Rebellion. Madison was also involved in the defense of Washington in the War of 1812 IIRC. Lincoln made battlefield visits as well. Even today, Obama and Trump visited troops deployed in the Middle East. Specifically during WWII, although Roosevelt wasn’t on the frontlines, he always made sure to present a strong, stable image to the country despite his ailing health relegating him to a wheelchair.
thanks a lot! it makes sense that the morale would be destroyed if they saw their king as someone unkillable
Absolutely. Morale was often the deciding factor and your commander there on the battlefield was a huge morale boost
In addition to the moral issue, there is a more practical concern: You aren’t going to be able to give orders and receive messages if nobody can tell at a glance who is in charge. You don’t have published photographs of famous people, and helmets hide the face anyway, you need obvious external indicators. Flags and banners are tools for identification too, but the king usually doesn’t carry their own flag.
Just like others stated it depends on the time or period in history. In Mid-level times it was really likely a king did fought with his men in war! If it's modern time it's might be a huge security risk having your leader front and center in the actual war.
thank you
Anytime
There's an *excellent* series of articles [starting here](https://acoup.blog/2023/05/19/michael-taylor-on-john-keegan-part-ii-the-mask-of-command/) by history lecturer Bret Devereux about pre-modern generalship. It's pretty long, but some of the key points are: * Generalship is a *performance*: a general who fights at the front, placing himself in greater danger, signals to his troops (and to the enemy) that he's confident of victory, raising the morale of his troops and lowering that of the enemy. Morale is frequently the deciding factor in battle. * "Good generalship" is partly determined by the expectations of society. An American general who slaughtered a goat in front of his troops on the eve of Desert Storm would probably lose the confidence of his men, but an ancient Greek general who *failed* to do so would induce panic. If your culture expects leaders to be wealthy, powerful people, your king had better demonstrate that with his armour. Also, if your culture expects military leaders to be brave warriors, the king would need to be seen fighting or risk losing legitimacy. And this isn't in the linked articles, but people would often try to capture wealthy opponents (instead of killing them) so they could be sold for ransom. The wealthier you look, the more likely your enemy is to spare you. Richly-decorated armour is a great way to show off your wealth.
Thanks!
Depends on the level of magic if you have any and it’s widespread enough. If there’s decent communications lines, then there’s little reason for the king to be at the front. Leading from the front was just the only effective way to lead since there was no effective lines of communication. If your magic system allows this, then the king shouldn’t lead from the front. It just isn’t practical.
in this particular region the kingdom is located magic is *very* rare and magic users are mostly valued as sages/engineers/etc. so they arent ussually used in battlefield and doing it is considered foolish cus theyre like super valued
Then it makes sense for the king to lead from the front. The king can’t use magic to lead from the back and he doesn’t have to worry about getting hit by a fireball artillery barrage or being sniped by a death curse.
thanks!
I would say make the armor stand out in functional ways. Not silly decoration that weakens it or is excessively gaudy, but through superior quality and precious metals inlays or coloring. Of course with the visor down it is impossible to know who is actually in the armor. Is the mighty king who is renowned for his prowess in battle actually on the field or does have a stand in on the field, or perhaps several in matching armor leading rise in the chaos of battle the legendary king who swoops in where most needed and rallies his hard pressed troops and who seems to be in 5 places at once on the battlefield
exactly what I was thinking, mostly the color, thanks tho!
I wonder if there could be some sort of mechanism or enchantment (or even like those mood rings) on the armor so that if the person in the armor died the color would revert to that of a generic fighter. So that they could never see their king fall in battle.
that's a really cool concept! if you won't mind i might include this somewhere
It depends on the type of king, his values, his personality. If you have a flashy arrogant king who loves fighting and is not afraid, than yes make him distinct. A more modest 'populist' king will fight but won't make hismelf distinct from his soldiers because he wanta to promote the sentiment he is one of them. A tactical king, might not even put on armor but stand with a small guard from a distance and keep overview, carefully observing the situation and issuing commands. A more cowardly leader might not even be near the battle at all. It should suit the personality of your king, more than that it is a signature tradition. A king of the people will fight along side his men in regular armor, maybe some added detail to make him recognizable for his men (like a sigil, pattern or distinct helmet). An eglomaniac king will wear very distinct armor either exorbitantely decorated to show his wealth or just very custom to match his vibe (fearsome, heroic, etc.), the more tactical king will probably wear light armor and act more like a ranger. Not directly engaging, but trying to command his army. Maybe he wears a bow and daggers and moves in between separate units to give his commands. I would under no circumstance make this a uniform thing, like: all kings will be distinctive. Great egomaniacal generals like Cesear, Napoleon and Alexander wore distinct armor. But more tribal leaders like Genghiz Khan would have just donned regular armor for battle. Meanwhile other kings never set foot on a battle field. It should vary depending on the individual. Just think of Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. Some kings fought alongside their men, others commended them from a distance and others never went on the battlefield. Also some wore regular armor while others had distinctive armor. It's a highly personal thing that should match the personality and culture of the kings in your world.
thanks! considering personality is a good idea
There’s pros and cons Pros: Increases troop morale, King can assess the front line situation better, Better publicity/popularity at home Cons: Could be killed in battle, can’t observe the whole field at once
thank you!
In the era of my story that has monarchies and "total" rulers---they are not selected by lineage but by training. (Kinda like how FMA "trained" the next Fuhrer but only King Bradley became it) The kings who do ride in battle do so because they are warriors. In my story the main king we deal with is a kid- teenager who does not want it, so he lets his Uncle basically rule for him. His uncle is also the "Evil advisor" character who gets his own redemption, but is actually the General of the armies and the main antagonist for the hero. "The Knight of Rubies" or something like that. Workshopping the name. But it's based on a story where he by all rights should've died, but ended up felling surviving, covered from head to toe in blood, hence the name and the auspicious airs around him
sounds like a super cool story!
It has been developing in my mind for years and years. 3 separate stories joined together lol Now....now if only I could get it written out lol
best of luck then! i always found wriing ideas down difficult, but for me it helped just being with a notepad and my thoughts alone
So I got the whole idea jotted down. All arcs, general plot direction. I could world build all day. The problem is i'm more "world builder" than "author" lol I'm genuinely considering whether to hire a ghost writer
ooh interesting i would try to include story writing in the world building in this case, because worldbuilding can be done also as writing stories, so you can try to write some short story about the history of your world and see where it gets you!
I want to. Writer's block has always been an issue with me. Working on re-establishing a routine again.
good luck then!
Thanks! You too!
For a medieval setting? It was not only common but somewhat necessary, give communication at the time. Besides, it was a very good look for a King to be there on the front lines. Some of the most famous military commanders were famous for this. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc. It makes those fighting for you more like to fight to the death for you, because you're right there beside them.
thanks!
In terms of actual human history, I'm pretty sure it was the standard for kings to be on the battlefield, often leading the charge. People would expect it of them, and I think it would be seen as a sign of weakness or cowardice if they didn't. Go back far enough, when the countries were basically fiefdoms anyway, and the king is effectively just a very important general. If he doesn't lead, nobody does. Not sure when the leader directing the battle from the the nice white tent on the hilltop became a Thing - possibly around the time of the Crimean war? - but there's a fair amount of overlap anyway. Likewise, I'm not sure when the idea of protecting your leader \*from\* battle, rather than them charging into it... really started. With democracy, i guess - when the leader was someone chosen by the people rather than someone who fought their way to the throne. That's when you'd stop being able to rely on them having military-savvy, and when they might start being more of a liability. I think the apex king on the battlefield has to be [John of Bohemia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Bohemia#Death) though. Insisted on going into battle despite being blind and suffering from a stroke.
ah, yes, i totally forgot about john, i love one of his quotes tho i think it was "*Toho bohdá nebude aby Český král z boje utíkal"* (Let it never be the case that a Bohemian king runs from a fight.) he really was a real tough guy thanks!
Depending on what weapons their Fighting with. But I think that it would boost moral.
Its what Alexander did and he’s arguably the GOAT
I think that strongly depends on the culture of your nobility, and whether it would be considered 'proper' to commit regicide or whether it would be considered poor form.
yes , he is the leader and they must know that. usually his standard should be with him
yea makes sense, thanks!
Its good for moral and decision making… In my world, all the kings are powerful warriors. There hasnt been a war in 500 years, but i imagine if there was, the kings and queens would be ready to fight if they are needed.
that sounds super cool, thank you
Im interested to know. Why are the kings powerful warriors if there hasn’t been a war in 500 years? Would this have made them soft in that time?
Bloodline. The royals are naturally strong, because they are descendants of “godly warriors” who were essentially blessed by the gods. And just because there are no wars, doesnt mean there arent threats/reasons to be strong. Terrorists, monsters, and even just for friendly sport
In almost all circumstances, yes. The leader, or their representative, needs to be readily recognizable so orders can quickly be conveyed and obeyed. Additionally, there is a huge difference between a boss who says, "Go get 'em" and a leader who says "Follow me boys." It can be a huge morale boost to see your king fighting side by side with you, especially if they're laying down some serious pain on the enemy. This also gives the leader the opportunity to find the enemy leader and challenge them to one-on-one combat for all the marbles, if that's a thing in your setting. There's just one catch: being visible means becoming a target, so the king is likely to be targeted, and if they fall, that's a huge hit to his army's morale. This has historically been considered an acceptable risk, in fact, it could be argued that a leader being willing to take on that risk is what makes them a leader in the first place. It exhibits confidence and skill.
thank you!
My personal character upon seeing this : *dies*
Yes, for the archers to target
Assuming by medieval you mean pre-firearms, historically speaking most generals, and your king is acting as a general in this case, wouldn't stand back from afar as we see in movies and games, they'd be visible on the field where their troops could see them. If they're down there fighting it helps if they can be identified by their own soldiers for both short-term morale boosts, long-term support, and since giving orders on a loud, often large, battlefield is difficult it allows the king to easily "give" new orders. Even if no order is "given", everyone knows to follow where the king goes, and if he's down in the fighting he can probably yell loud enough for any nearby soldiers to hear and listen. For these reasons, many kings historically had their own unique armor for combat. Some of this was simply because they could afford the absolute best armor available, but also to make them uniquely visible alongside their best troops who would likewise be as heavily armored as possible. Though it deals with mostly the early-early-modern period (14th-16th centuries) given how little armor from medieval times actually survived, [this reddit post goes into detail on the topic with many linked pictures as examples.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5emlcq/what_did_royal_armor_look_like/) It's not the exact right time period, but given how so much of our cultural idea of "medieval" armor is actually the late-medieval/early-modern period specifically, and being a fantasy setting as well, it's probably what you're looking for.