News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Good point. I did not look too far back indeed. It would be interesting to know at what point that shift happened. Was it because of a weapons upgrade, or the increased complexity of the state, or ... ?
To be fair it probably came from the fact that armies that protected strategic leaders at the expense of common soldiers were, over time, more effective. Military doctrine has a tendency to shift towards whatever works best, because the armies that don't adopt it lose wars and don't get to keep fighting.
Strategic leaders seem more a thing of the past, few would suspect Trump of being strategic, so I think I'm misunderstanding the point here. If Trump were taken out by an enemy from afar, it would not impact the US strategy, right?
Having let this entire discussion sink in a bit, it might also have to do with the decreasing influence of religion on leaders. Where in earlier times honour before God was an incentive for a king to fight among soldiers, such considerations may have vanished since the Enlightenment. But I'm not a historian, just pulling this out of my behind, :)
With respect to strategic leaders I was more referring to officers than political leaders. Historically, the path from military power to political power was also shorter: A common way to get political power was to first establish yourself as a high ranking officer.
This whole pipeline of "protecting officers, because it makes militarily sense" via "high ranking officers often end up with political power" to todays situation seems a rather natural development to me.
I'm making a guess but probably about the point somebody in a perch half a mile away could snipe said leader who was obviously showing rank and "leading from the front" haha.
Would an archer be able to do that? A spearman? Happened in 300 but I doubt that was accurate ;)