In the Gaza Strip, Israeli attacks have killed at least 18 Palestinians since Wednesday. One assault on a tent encampment for displaced Palestinians killed four people near Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in central Gaza. The strike destroyed dozens of tents and wounded many others, including children. In southern Gaza, medical workers have begun vaccinating tens of thousands of Palestinian children in the city of Khan Younis against polio — the second stage of a U.N.-led polio eradication effort.
Meanwhile, Hamas has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of deliberately undermining efforts to forge a ceasefire and hostage release deal by refusing to withdraw Israeli troops from the Philadelphi Corridor along Gaza’s border with Egypt. This comes as newly published documents show how Netanyahu and Israeli negotiators purposefully prolonged Israel’s assault on Gaza by making new demands during ceasefire talks. The documents published by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth also reveal that three of the six hostages found dead in Gaza last weekend were due for release under a ceasefire agreement drafted in May.
Not entirely bullshit. Leaders like Alexander the Great and King Richard I are noted as being constantly in the thick of the fighting. Warlords like that need to be in the fighting, exposed to danger, in order to preserve their own military credentials with their troops (who will be far less fooled by tall tales of battles they themselves were in). And that kind of warlord leadership is pretty common before the modern day.
The thing is, it’s ineffective, because it means every time you fight a battle, you risk a decapitation of your entire army or state and a succession crisis. So military institutions that last long enough pretty inevitably come to the conclusion that “At least out of javelin range” is the preferred distance for a king or general.
See: Propaganda by strongman fascists
But also? Nobility would not be part of the spearwall. Or, to be more precise, they would not be part of the first spearwall and may only be part of a formation that comes in to mop up when the battle is all but won. Or they would be mounted tanks in the form of plate armor (more richard than alexander). They key being that they would be able to get their blade wet but would be in little to no danger.
I loathe to compare the two as I think Zelenskyy is actually a genuinely good leader who is focusing on his role as a political leader, but he is actually a really good example of this. When things are comparatively safe he’ll walk the front(-ish) lines and get face time with the soldiers to maintain morale and get photo ops. But mostly he is a politician in camo pants who is making sure that the people who actually are fighting for Ukraine’s survival have guns and ammo. A more “strongman” style leader might argue that as being “he is on the frontlines fighting alongside the heroic men and women of our army” but he is never in any meaningful danger.
While they wouldn’t be part of the spearwall, they generally were in constant and very real danger. Cavalry is safer, but very far from safe, and often dedicated early in the battle to prevent enemy cavalry from taking the initiative. Richard I, for example, who lived before plate armor was in vogue, was constantly in the thick of the fighting, even when the battles were desperate. The Roman generals (and later Emperors) Vespasian and Titus both were wounded multiple times during the First Jewish-Roman War, and they even came from a less foolhardy military tradition of officership. Pyyrhus of Epirus died because he was in the thick of the fighting, and he wasn’t exactly a meathead. Genghis Khan, Emperor Alexios Komnenos, Harold Godwinson, it goes on and on.
These nobles were often a warrior caste, or near to being one, and whatever else may be said of them (how many ‘commoner’ lives they would sacrifice for their own convenience and glory, for example), “Unwilling to face danger” usually isn’t one of them. They’re brought up, not unlike what modern fascists have tried to do, in a society that glorifies death and danger.
Ultimately this is all nitpicking and me being quarrelsome about a small detail, lol, but I enjoy such details.
I’m just going to reiterate this for no apparent reason:
Propaganda by strongman fascists.
There is a VERY big difference between “nobles of a warrior caste” and “people who fight and die in a war”. yes, danger exists. Zelenskyy could die from a sudden mortar strike or a sniper any time he is visiting the troops. But every possible precaution is taken to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Which gets back to the reality of it. This is, and always has been, theater. Sometimes it is a politician trying to show that they care about the troops. Other times it is a strongman trying to show that they are a warrior and might makes right so support them.
But all fixating on this does is lead to photo ops and stupidity where fascists (like netanyahu) portray themselves as warriors and veterans so that people will support them.
Because, bare minimum: Being good at ending some lives doesn’t make you a good leader.
You seem very insistent on interpreting millenia of history through the lense of an early 20th century political movement.
Yes there has likely always been an element of theatre and leaders exagerating their role in battles, but to claim that nobility/monarchs never came from warrior castes that were active in fighting flies in the face of huge amounts of scholarship. It hasnt been true in industrialised societies since the 18th century at least but that doesnt mean it never was.