In ancient cultures, it's clear that leading from the front was an essential facet of command. Societal traditions, military demands, and personalities all figured. Some, like Alexander the Great, were admired but ultimately critiqued for their recklessness. Others, like Julius Caesar, took pragmatic risks in defined circumstances.
Contemporaries critiqued the relative benefits and heightened risks of such actions. Though there were always battlefield imperatives, the reasons for leading in person were not exclusively military. Some made their reputations – in politics and war – by leading from the front. Others lost far more than that. Let's see why commanders led from the front.
Homeric ideals and spolia opima
Powerful cultural drivers influenced ancient societies in warfare and command behaviour. Dominating Hellenic and Roman culture, some ideals of ancient leadership were symbolic, ritualized, and virtue-based. There was a distinct notion that a commander should be, or identify as, a martial champion. From the Greek tradition, Homeric ideals endured. Leadership, courage, and martial glory were conspicuously celebrated. Homer's heroes stalked the battlefield, pursuing personal displays of prowess, vendetta, and honour.
Single combat, so prominent in Homer, although antiquated, was an enduring feature of Greco-Roman warfare:
Pyrrhus, who yielded to none of the kings in daring and prowess, and wished that the glory of Achilles should belong to him by right of valour … advanced through the foremost fighters to confront(Plutarch, )
