Good point, MajorD...
Although we thrill to exploits of Generals-in-the-field, by being too close to the action they can lose the overview so necessary to conduct their forces to the maximum effect.
One thinks for instance of Urquhart at Arnhem in almost hand-to-hand contact with the enemy, yet he has been criticised for
not remaining at the rear and so losing all influence on events.
Ironically, when it worked well, Montgomery's system of remaining close behind the line but with a team of dynamic liaison officers reporting back to him could be extremely effective. Allied to Montgomery's '
PR' method of personally adressing troops, he did not appear to British Army soldiers as being 'distant'.
There has to be a balance, though. The WW1 'chateau generals' commanded little respect, then or now.... [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]