Ytdyklly

If I were to describe Waterloo from Napoleon's point of view, it would be very different from that same battle from the point of view of a soldier, or even a cavalry lieutenant in the front ranks. Napoleon's fate is decided on that battlefield as much as the lieutenant's. Napoleon has a better understanding of what's going on all around the field, and he's the one making the large-scale decisions. But Napoleon is not performing feats of personal courage, he is not charging the enemy, he is not meeting the enemy's sword with his own. That's what the lieutenant does.

If Napoleon were to lead the charge, as King Theoden does in The Lord of the Rings, that would be inspiring for his troops, but he would no longer be commanding the battle. Runners from other parts of the battlefield wouldn't know where to find him, wouldn't be able to report to him. And he himself wouldn't be able to transmit orders to the varied divisions of his force.

Is there any way I can have the cake and eat it too? Writing about a pre-modern battlefield, is there any way I can give the reader both the thrill of following the cavalry lieutenant, and the weight of command and tactical understanding that come with following Napoleon?

Some Generals fought alongside their soldiers. I did a quick google to confirm and as recent as WWII some generals fought while directing battle.

Caesar was known to join the fray when the issue was in doubt, inspiring his men and giving his loyal legions the desire to not only please him, but protect him.

The further back in history your battle is, the more likely that the leader will lead by example.

The battle scenes in War & Peace have a beautiful balance of this, giving the reader the prebattle prep and then going to the other officers. The general in that situation met with some controversy as part of his overarching strategy involved bringing the French in as deep into Russia as possible, ceding cities if he needed to. His strategy was brilliant and worked, oncoming winter was a weapon Napoleon could not counter.

Have the commander, if popular enough, see that his presence is required at a particular point in battle and get on his horse and ride into the fray.

Caesar, in a desperate situation where he had led his men to attack from a disadvantageous position, took off his helmet and took a shield from a nearby legionary and ran into battle, fighting for his life as well as victory. His men - outnumbered as was often the case - still prevailed as they needed to protect their beloved leader.

Such situations where the general must get his men to rally around him and strike through the enemy are extremely dramatic and dangerous. Alexander was often wounded in battle since he always fought with his men.

If fictional, choose the personality of your commander. Is he the sort whose presence with his men in battle would be enough of an advantage to counter the personal danger and tactical difficulty of the situation? Is he an Alexander who is always shoulder to shoulder with his men? Is he a Caesar who does this when the situation is grim? Had he been less popular, his appearance in battle would have merely reinforced what the men knew - we are losing this one. Rather, they rallied and fought for their general.

When commanders lead from a place within the battle, runners might not find them as easily, but signals still were in place so that reserves could be called in or sent to turn the enemy’s flank if the centre was doing well.