If your point is that a successful commander takes risks and wins, no argument with that.
If your point omits to include the safety precautions that even the greatest commanders take,then it is a mistake.
Take Napoleon; where he took precautions, he won. In those cases, the risks are clearly visible, but his precautionary measures are rarely remembered. This would take some time to expand on, but consider that whenever he failed to take precautions, he lost. The entire Russian campaign, for one; the Spanish campaign even before that; the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig) for another; Waterloo needs hardly be mentioned.
Battlefield commanders who fought in the field themselves are a completely different kettle of fish; Napoleon, for instance, was noteworthy for never getting involved in the cut and thrust of actual combat (losing his boot in the near-capture by Austrian troops in Italy was an aberration).
Alexander was the other kind; he led his charges himself, right at the apex of the Companions, and perhaps you had him in mind when you made your observation. It fits him as it does no other. Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XII and Frederick the Great come to mind; how would you characterise them, as risk-takers without qualification, or as risk-takers who left room for recovery from errors?
In recent times, might I remind you of MacArthur's horrible example? Or Rommel vs. Montgomery?
You should really open a new thread and invite
@PanzerKiel into that. He is put off for some reason and needs to be lured back.
Brahui is not a South Indian language; it is a language from the Dravidian language family.
No, no, no, by the hair on my chinny-chin-chin!
