Em thật là cụ thì kiến thức tranh luận không có nên phải đem công kích cá nhân ra thì hơi hãm cụ ạ. Ít nhất không hiểu thì cũng nên tư duy những gì người khác nói xem chỗ nào đúng sai, và vì sao. Phản biện được thì phản biện còn không tìm hiểu thêm.
Còn lịch sử về các tướng đánh nhau thế nào thì cụ nên đọc thêm cái này:
They do when necessary… A general has to be in the best position to command his forces. He needs to be able to get a good overview of the battle, and give orders quickly enough, so that he can influence the battle with his orders.
Where the optimal position is, depends heavily on the time in history, and the technology available.
In the end, it depends both on the speed, and quality of the communication, both from the battlefield to the general, and from the general to the battlefield.
In the past, the best way for the general to get a good view of the battle, was to be on a hill near the battlefield. Thus he could see what was going on himself, and thus get the fastest and best quality communication possible. However, he also needed to be able to give commands to his army. That can be done quickly using sound and flag signals in small battles. In a big battle, you’ll need aids to communicate the message, which slows things down... That’s still ok in slow battles, for example with mostly foot soldiers. Most battles of Julias Caesar would be done that way.
However, when the battle is very fast, for example because the armies use lots of cavalry, then it can be impossible for the general to communicate his orders fast enough. And thus it can be necessary for the general to be with the cavalry, to be able to give the necessary orders. Alexander the Great was with his cavalry when he attacked the Persians, so he could best command the fake attack at the flank, and shift the direction at the optimal moment towards the center.
Often, you’ll see combinations of the above. For example, the overall commanding general on the hill overseeing the complete battle, while his second in command, (lower ranking general) might be with the cavalry. For example Napoleon and Ney at Waterloo.
During the ages, these basis concept stay valid, although technology will influence the parameters.
During WWI, the battles slowed down enormously, because cavalry became suicidal in the face of machine guns. Also, massive artillery barrages seemed most effective. Battles lasted weeks, not hours. Hence, speed of communication was less of an issue. As a result, the general tended to stay further behind the front line.
During WWII, exactly the opposite happened. Tanks were so fast that it was impossible to keep track of the battle from behind. German generals commanded from the front, because that was the only way to both get direct and accurate information about the battle, and be in a position to immediately give commands to the men. The French generals in 1940 commanded from the back, like in WWI. They both lost track of the battle, and issued orders that were already irrelevant by the time they arrived to the troops. That’s the main cause of the defeat of France in WWII.
In modern time, the speed of battle is still very fast. But our means of communication, especially in the last decades, have gotten much better. This allows excellent situational awareness for the commander, while also allowing quick commands to the front. Hence, the place of command has again moved further away from the front line.
In the end, it’s always a balance between getting the best overview of the battle, and the best means of communicating back to the troops. Safety of the general is not the most important aspect here. Obviously, you don’t want your generals to be killed quickly, but just observing the battle can mostly be done quite safely, even close to the front.
Các cụ xem phim ảnh và tiểu thuyết nhiều quá nên nó bị hằn vào óc rồi khó thay đổi lắm