Surprisingly enough, while a lot of enemy AI generals will die because I make an effort to target them if it won't detract from the battle, my biggest issues with suicidal generals have been on my side. Old/young, new/experienced, no star/five star, offense/defense, it doesn't matter. They all seem to think reinforcing means charging out of the gate at top speed (meaning it's always the cavalry (including the general) who hits the enemy first and gets slaughtered). Even enemy AI reinforcements seem to be a little more cautious.

As someone else said, whenever I have two general-leading armies near each other, I either drop one general or move them to the same group in order to avoid worrying that one will just decide it's time to die. It's pretty sad, actually.

Of course, having a captain-lead group too close to a general group usually means you have the captain being attacked and the general under AI anyway...it pays to always be on the offense, I suppose...

While Roman history has a lot of examples of generals who were so opposed in how they fought that they didn't really work as teams, it would be nice if there was an option for you to give the AI at least an overall strategy, such as telling them to be aggressive, be defensive, or hold back. I once had a beautiful hillside defensive position and was tearing the enemy with archers and onagers and suddenly my buddy rides through my lines (taking casualties, of course) and charges into their lines. At that point, I was stuck with the choice of watching the AI throw away my secondary force and its good commander, or have my men also take a lot more casualties than they should and charge in for the rescue. That's not what reinforcements are for...