Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 1592160" data-attributes="member: 8439">This is the way I've been thinking as well. I think what some people here are describing is more of a Conan-esq warleader than a general. The very use of the term General implies to me a structured army and a position where tactics and thinking are going to be more important than impressing everyone with your own bravery. A foreman is not a general. A foreman is a sargent or a Master Chief perhaps. The architect is the general, and while the construction workers may like him a bit better if he seems moderately rugged, what really matters is if the design and timetable work. And more importantly, like soldiers under a General (as opposed to a horde leader) they don't really have a vote.You might think that you would get a warm fuzzy (or less grandmother appropriate feeling) seeing your general charge into the thick of things and take the heads off three enemy soldiers in a row. But in the real world, the soldier whose general stayed out of the thick of it, communicated orders clearly and came out of a similar situation with half the casualties is going to be just as happy with his assignment and live longer. And his army will beat yours in every battle.I find mysef thinking of Master and Commander, though thats naval. But Lucky Jack never jumped into battle till the very end and never even tried to be physically intimidating to his men. He commanded respect because he was smart and intuitive, could get them out of tough spots on the fly and made the hard decisions with authority. There were undoubtably men on the ship who could wipe the decks with him, but he was a military leader, not the thug who gets to yell 'charge' by virtue of being the biggest.Kahuna Burger</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kahuna Burger, post: 1592160, member: 8439"] This is the way I've been thinking as well. I think what some people here are describing is more of a Conan-esq warleader than a general. The very use of the term General implies to me a structured army and a position where tactics and thinking are going to be more important than impressing everyone with your own bravery. A foreman is not a general. A foreman is a sargent or a Master Chief perhaps. The architect is the general, and while the construction workers may like him a bit better if he seems moderately rugged, what really matters is if the design and timetable work. And more importantly, like soldiers under a General (as opposed to a horde leader) they don't really have a vote. You might think that you would get a warm fuzzy (or less grandmother appropriate feeling) seeing your general charge into the thick of things and take the heads off three enemy soldiers in a row. But in the real world, the soldier whose general stayed out of the thick of it, communicated orders clearly and came out of a similar situation with half the casualties is going to be just as happy with his assignment and live longer. And his army will beat yours in every battle. I find mysef thinking of Master and Commander, though thats naval. But Lucky Jack never jumped into battle till the very end and never even tried to be physically intimidating to his men. He commanded respect because he was smart and intuitive, could get them out of tough spots on the fly and made the hard decisions with authority. There were undoubtably men on the ship who could wipe the decks with him, but he was a military leader, not the thug who gets to yell 'charge' by virtue of being the biggest. Kahuna Burger [/QUOTE]

Verification