We've all seen movie scenes where "the King" or whoever leads his army into battle. Now obviously that's a fictional portrayal, but I've read credible sources that say that on occasion famous rulers/generals did, in fact, lead their troops into battle; for instance, Julius Caesar, Napolean, and Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Here's what I don't understand. Surviving the front lines, especially in old hand-to-hand combat must have been a feat in and of itself, what with arrows flying directly at your face, spears, etc.
As a regular soldier, you might get lucky, but the thing is if you were the General, all the enemy soldiers would be aiming at you with ranged weapons. I find it impossible to believe someone could survive a hailstorm of arrows like that, especially on multiple occasions.
Thanks.
In pre-gunpowder combat, the battlefield was in many ways less lethal than it was today. The majority of casualties would likely happen when one side broke and fled, which would allow the victors to pursue them and kill them more easily. Movies portray pre-gunpowder warfare as a giant meat grinder, where two sides smash into each other and rip each other into shreds for hours. This is not how combat really worked in the period. The most convincing model among historians today is that battles happened in short "pulses" rather than one giant slog. Groups would advance, engage briefly, and whoever was starting to lose would break off to recollect themselves and prepare to try again.
So to relate this back to the phenomenon of military leaders engaging in direct combat: they were not at as much risk as you might think. Partly this is because of direct combat being less lethal than commonly assumed, but also, a general would be outfitted in higher quality armor than regular soldiers, would likely be able to have as many mounts as he needed in case they were wounded or killed, and would be surrounded by their own bodyguards. Arrows are pretty survivable when someone is wearing heavy armor (at least in the medieval period). Yes, the enemy might try to attack a general directly, but that's what bodyguards are for. Medieval commanders fought in the front lines quite frequently and many of them were killed, but it was far from a death sentence. Usually, their greatest personal risk would be getting wounded and captured rather than killed outright, barring some kind of political complications like a civil war.
You might find something of interest in some of my earlier posts on related questions:
Did the people in the front lines of ancient armies basically know they were going to die?, in which I discuss the difference between massed close combat in movies and in real life (insofar as we can reconstruct it)
In the age of sword and bow, did generals actually fight in the front ranks?