古代的谋士们为什么多是谋士而非将帅呢？这似乎是一个很有意思的问题。在三国时期，周瑜是孙权的谋士，诸葛亮是刘备的谋士，司马懿是曹操的谋士。但是，历史上也有许多谋士成为将帅的情况，比如诸葛亮在刘备东征时成为将帅，周瑜在东吴时成为将帅。
那么，为什么谋士们多是谋士而非将帅呢？一种解释是，谋士们通常更加注重策略和规划，而不是军事指挥。谋士们负责为君主或领袖提供决策和建议，而不是负责具体的军事行动。因此，他们更适合担任谋士的角色。
另一个解释是，将帅通常需要负责具体的军事行动，而谋士则不需要。在战争中，将帅需要带领军队前进，而谋士则可以在后方出谋划策。因此，谋士们更适合担任谋士的角色。
当然，这只是一些可能的解释。实际上，这个问题可能并没有那么简单的答案。在历史上，许多谋士也成为了将帅，例如诸葛亮在刘备东征时成为将帅，周瑜在东吴时成为将帅。因此，这个问题可能需要更多的研究和探讨。
新闻翻译：
Title: Why ancient strategists were mostly advisors rather than generals?
Keywords: ancient strategists, generals, position swapping
News content:
In ancient times, why were most strategists advisors rather than generals? It seems like an interesting question. In the Three Kingdoms period, Zhou Yu was a strategist under Sun Quan, Zhuge Liang was a strategist under Liu Bei, and Sima Wei was a strategist under Cao Cao. However, in history, there are also many cases where strategists have become generals, such as Zhuge Liang as a general during Liu Bei’s eastward campaign.
So, why did most strategists become advisors rather than generals? One possible explanation is that strategists usually focus more on planning and strategy than on military command. Strategists are responsible for providing advice and recommendations to the ruler or leader, rather than conducting specific military operations. Therefore, they are more suitable for the role of advisors.
Another explanation is that generals usually need to be responsible for specific military operations, while strategists do not. In a war, generals need to lead the army, while strategists can work in the background to provide advice. Therefore, strategists are more suitable for the role of advisors.
Of course, this is just some possible explanations. In fact, this question may not have a simple answer. In history, many strategists have also become generals, such as Zhuge Liang as a general during Liu Bei’s eastward campaign. Therefore, this question may require more research and discussion.
【来源】https://www.zhihu.com/question/335075677
Views: 1