Isuildur's escort problems in Gladden fields?

[Hisoka Morrow]

It's common sense that the highest political minister of a nation shouldn't accompany with his most prior succesors such as deputies in any journey with any risk, after all, it's a ultimate bloody hell if they died or met any accidents severe enough making them unable for duties. And Isuildur just brought all his sons in his escort, absent all kinds of firepower apart from a few archers. Any thought?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

In "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" in Unfinished Tales, it's explained that as Sauron had fallen, and all the orcs had apparently fled, Isildur "had no fear" of an attack. Also, he'd left his youngest son Valandil at Imladris, when going to the war.

Valandil was too young to participate, I believe, but there was a law involved, as related in "Cirion and Eorl" (UT) which gives a fuller account of the deaths of Ondoher and his sons in battle against the Wainriders in TA 1944:

Ondoher's second son Faramir was ordered to remain in Minas Tirith as regent, for it was not permitted by the law that both his sons should go into battle at the same time [. . .] But Faramir did not do so; he went to the war in disguise, and was slain.

 

[Ent]

It's common sense that the highest political minister of a nation shouldn't accompany with his most prior succesors such as deputies in any journey with any risk

Keep in mind Tolkien wrote his Middle-earth to be very similar to Feudal and early Middle-age times.
In those days, it was common for the "feudal King" or early Monarch to lead their people into battle.

The relationship they held with one another was very different than what has been seen from the late Middle-ages to beyond.

Support of the leader was because of love, not command or requirement. If people didn't like their relationship to the King, they simply moved and chose another.

The Kings supported their own armies... there was no excess taxation on the peoples to fund and support them.

So 'common sense' of today simply does not apply to what would have been done in Tolkien's Middle-earth.

It was only after centralization of power, increased taxation to fund everything on the backs of the now totally unknown people, etc. the leaders started using others to fight their battles for them while they stayed home safe and sound.

(I won't take this line of reasoning any further here, as it's really a tragic bit of history to lose, and has been widely perverted by the 'winners' who managed to bring the early middle ages to an end, other than to say there's a great difference after Rome, during the years roughly 800 - 1300 in history, and from about late 1300s on into the 'Rennaisance' which is rightly named, meaning "a return'' - i.e. 'bringing back all the Roman centralization, taxation and corruption.)

To understand Tolkien's Middle-earth is to understand the period he most favored in terms of his political perspectives. A good deal of work needs to be done, and what we now feel to be 'common sense' for a number of reasons, left behind.