>>286120
Having better armour than everyone else really helps.

>>286120
4+ invulnerable save

>>286120
Many did die actually, Harold Godwinson was shot in the eye by an archer

>>286143
I know, but it's also amazing how there's people that survived every battle leading from the front like Alexander the Great.

They were skilled when they were a small group. On larger battlefields, they would sit near the backside and direct the war. On the largest scales, they'd let their generals do their work and have yourself do the directing of multiple fronts.

>>286155
This. I think it depended on the scale of the war and the era.

>>286120

Combat losses in ancient battles were pretty low and even those were almost entirely sustained in the rout.

If you're in armor and on a horse, your odds of making through a battle are pretty good. Certainly less than the rather large risk you're running if you send the cream of your male population and putting them under the command of someone else who might have an eye on your throne.


How much do you trust your generals, OP?

>>286155
>>286162
They also had bodyguards. Leading from the front doesn't mean spending the whole battle there.

A full set of to-tier armor was incredibly effective and ridiculously expensive. Not everyone went into battle with the best possible gear, that was for the wealthy.

A maximized armor person is very difficult to kill. You need a powerful direct hit with an anti-armor weapon like a mace or to slip an arrow or blade into one of the small opening.

Give the guy a group of body guards with equally good armor and it's going to take a lot of work or a lot of luck to get the kill.

>>286120

There was a retinue of mages and clerics with them at all times casting buffs on the general or king.

They also carried a large supply of potions and teleport scrolls if things got too hairy.

Source: Ottoman Conquest of Thracia