Historically, there were no standing armies, so naturally the monarch could not be a professional soldier. But quite a lot of them since, including current royals, have military training. Before the age of standing armies they’d have had training in warfare and politics as well.
Even if you are going to delegate it to the generals, you need some appreciation of how it works and who seems like a good general.
I’m not saying people need to have phd’s and 20 years experience to manage. But probably more than a couple of years.
> there were no standing armies, so naturally the monarch could not be a professional soldier.
In medieval Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire, monarchs and noblemen were supposed to be trained knights - unless they wanted a career in the Church (and even there, you have the Borgia...). The whole vassalage setup was built on the assumption that civilians would defer to rulers precisely because they could defend them in lawless times - something that required money (for horses, armour etc) and long and specialized martial training. That's why quite a few princes died or were captured in battle, or why disabled or physically-unfit rulers were extremely despised: they were supposed to "get stuck in" on the field. A lot of non-firstborn nobles ended up as professional mercenaries simply because they had the skills and training already. There was no standing army at what we would consider "national" level just because there was no concept of "nation": a ruler would own as much territory as he could afford to physically defend at any given time with his most direct vassals.
This is also part of the reason why they fought all the time: because that was all they knew.
Even if you are going to delegate it to the generals, you need some appreciation of how it works and who seems like a good general.
I’m not saying people need to have phd’s and 20 years experience to manage. But probably more than a couple of years.