Ancient Kings would fight in battles/wars. Kings would lead their armies in battlefields/battlegrounds. Kings were strong and brave men. There was 100% possibility that kings get killed in battles. But today world leaders give orders/direct their armies from thousands of miles away. World leaders stay in highly sophisticated, highly protected, and luxury buildings while Armies/military fight in unknown battlefields. That is the reason War continues for 10 years and more...........
The tradition of warrior /leader king died roughly 1000AD.Depending on the specific culture/empire, earlier than that to, depending on where in the known universe at the time you look. Your argument is BULLSHIT, given , most middle eastern tribesman were effectively obliged to carry daggers, up to the first world war. As a cultural tradition........and don't think for a second they never used them , or they were purely symbolic. No, they used their daggers. Stoned women , to..........
I think Rajputs kings in India would lead the armies in battlefields some 200 years back. Rajput kings were extremely strong and they would fight with heavy swords. Enemy would dare not come in front of Rajput kings. Ancient people say only Rajput kings were able to swing their heavy swords quickly. Other people would find it difficult to lift heavy swords. Rajputs kings were extremely strong that is the reason they were kings and had dominance over their people. Muslim kings would also lead their armies in battlefields some 200 years back. My history is not good. But today world leaders are weak men. Small winds will blow them away. They cannot lift swords, forget swinging swords. George Bush and Vladimir Putin (Russia) are strong men.
When world leaders stay thousands of miles away from battlefield, they do not know the true situation on the battlefield. There is good possibility wrong information is provided to the world leaders by army from battlefields. Ancient kings used to be on battlefields all through out the war so kings knew the true war situation and kings would make immediate decisions on battlefields. Also when todays world leaders go and fight in war zone/battlefields and they come under heavy firing from enemy or bombshell explodes 20 meters away from them, world leaders will stop the war immediately.
Other poster: It's been repeated on RPFs that Saddam actually challenged Bush to a duel to settle the leadership of Iraq. Bush, the consummate coward, did not respond except by ordering other people to risk their lives for his goals. Having to personally execute the imposition of force onto others would also go a long way to curbing police abuses. Instead of paying some guy in a blue costume to throw kids in cages, let the drug-warrior politicians and evangelicals get out on the street and start putting people in chains. They'd soon see that these are mostly harmless kids trying to get high or make a buck, and any armaments they're using are only meant to be defensive. They might feel regret. But no, we live in this institution where the inmates get to crow on about how the world should be, and let the apparatchik figure out how to get it done, in a cold detached manner.
Rofl, wtf is a Rajput king? So, uh....you talked to a few ancient people recently, huh? Dubya, who FELL OFF a segway scooter, could wield a heavy sword? Nice work , bearice. Mohammed's army won a famous victory, because the opponents had not counted on correct supplies or provisions, throw in disease, and the fact the soldiers wives stoned their husbands to not be such cowards and go back and fight, and you got the legend of Mohammed, the great warrior prophet. There you go bearice, some potted history for you.
are you an introvert? You come across like some annoyed introvert or something... "Bearice is in your territory and he's raiding your fridge, what are you going to do about it"... is that what you are feeling there bubie?