No, its moronic. Losing such high leadership in battle is a serious setback. There is a reason Richard 3 was the last English king to lead his army, and die in battle.
My comment was thrown out like a night crawler on a hook n bobber.
Well, a matter of opinion and country, frankly. I’d dare say that there are a LOT of Generals this country could stand to lose and come out the better for it. :0)
I am reminded of the last push by the Russians into Berlin. Stalin purposely pitted two of his own generals against each other to finish the job and take Berlin. Stalin didn’t give a crap how many soldiers it took - or Generals.
Washington was placed at the head of another Continental army in the mid-1790’s by then-POTUS Adams, with a totally hyperactive and status-seeking Hamilton positioned as Washington’s second in command. In the field, though, and during any anticipated combat operations, Hamilton was expected to lead, with Washington held back from the front lines in accordance the modern practice you’ve described.